Paul Krugman has a wonderfully succinct (and bleak) assessment of Bush's Social Security reform plan in today's NY Times. Reading this article, you realize that we are teetering on the brink of the total destruction of the Social Security systems and not too far away from complete economic collapse.
Now, for neo-cons the destruction of Social Security is their not so secret plan. But, then, they're the ones who will benefit from it.
For all the rest of us, Social Security is really just a way to spread the risk of saving for retirement. It's a huge pool which consolidates the individual risk of participants and by doing so, largely negates it. I happen to think that this is one of the triumphs of 20th century governance, but I know that many people will disagree.
For small government radicals, I say this: If all you want the government to do is provide law enforcement and isolationist foreign policy, then you can get the same results with well armed anarchy. Well armed anarchy is not enough for me, so I will continue advocating a humanist, enlightenment based government which funds social programs. Otherwise, all I can do is watch my less well armed fellow humans get robbed or killed, and that's unacceptable.
8 comments:
Hope all is well, since you have not been posting with your regular vigor.
Social Security does not "spread risk", insurance would spead risk, but the SS system is not insurance.
What Social Security is, is a ponze scheme. The classic pyrimid scheme.
Current workers support the retired workers. This worked fine when first implemented due to there being am increasing workforce that supported a slowly growing retired community.
The first to collect did great, they supplied the system with a little cash, and got huge benefits from it, but like in all such schemes, it is only a matter of time before it all falls apart.
That time is quickly coming for Social Security. It is estimated that in the next 30-40 years the ratio of retirees to workers will approach 1-1. So one worker will be supporting one retiree.
This is in no way spreading risk.
Social Security is not really a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme you get money only from the people who are under you, so to speak, and the person at the top gets almost everything. Neo-cons would like everyone to believe your assement of the system, becuase they want to get rid of Social Security for their own ends. And they have been slowly dismantling the system for awhile now to manufacture such a "crisis".
Social Security does operate somewhat like an insurance policy with an enormous pool does. The difference between the two is that insurance doesn't pay out to every memeber of the pool while SS does. There is currently an imbalance in the pay-in/pay-out amounts. This has less to do with the number of people working vs. the number of retirees than it does with the fact that the government has been borrowing from the SS trust fund for years, and cannot pay those loans back. Basically, it's as though the insurance company took your premiums and bought mansions, then when you filed a claim, they have no money to pay it. Does that mean insurance is bad? No, it means your insurance company needs a change in leadership.
Also, "huge benefits"?!? I don't know anyone getting huge benefits from Social Security, but I do know people for whom the benefits make the difference between breaking even in retirement and sinking into poverty. The costs to society, both financial and emotional, if these people do become impoverished are enormous, much more than the costs of SS.
OK you disagree, so let me put it this way.
Would it be legal for a private company to structure a benefit or retirement plan in the way Social Security is structured?
I actually don't know enough about financial law to say whether it would be legal or not. But that doesn't matter becuase your question is a non-sequitur: the government does a lot of things it would be illegal for a private company to do, and rightly so.
"Rightly so" how?
What is it that the government can do or should do that is illegal for an individual or company to do?
Isn't our government suppose to be bound by the same laws as the citizen?
And if the government is not bound by these laws, then why are you bitching about it's current actions, as they all have historical presidence?
As a for instance, how about law enforcement. There are things that cops do that I as an individual cannot. Or treaties: I can't sign a trade treaty with China, but the government can. I can't levy taxes. I can't print money (well I could, but I'd go to jail). All those things are rightly the province of the government. I happen to believe that Social Security falls under that rubric, but I am willing to agree to disagree on it.
The gov't isn't bound by the same laws as individuals, but it is bound by laws. And while there may be a precedent for what the gov't is doing right now, that doesn't necessarily make it right, or even legal. (Are you talking about Vietnam as a precedent for Iraq here? And if so, do you believe that Vietnam was legal?) Yes, I see how this discussion could lead to a debate about the American legal system being a system of common law (as opposed to civil law) where precedent and interpretation are as important as legislation, but I am not sure that's where you want to go.
I seem to remember you railing against monopolies.
You list a number of things that you believe only government can do, but only tax and treaties are powers granted the government in the Constitution. The government is suppose to be bound by the Constitution, so if it is not enumerated in the Constitution then the government is suppose to butt out.
There is absolutely no mention of Social Security or Law Enforcement found anywhere contained therein.
You seem to need at bit more study of History in general and US History in particular. Governmental law enforcement, I.E. police departments, have existed for less than half the history of the colonies and the U.S.A. These functions could and in some places already has been, turned over to the private sector.
This was a private sector business before the 1860's in many places. New York City's governmental police force was formed in the 1860's or 1870's, and he first.
As for Social Security being "a huge pool which consolidates the individual risk", where does this "huge pool" exist?
Social Security is actually a pay-as-you-go plan, which has an unfinanced debt of over $100 trillion looming in it's future. As it currently stands there are 3 workers for every 1 retiree. Within the next 30 or so years this will reverse with more retirees than workers, what kind of a system is that? Predictions of 50% SS tax rates are in my estimation way low, so should ourr kids, grandkids and great grandkids have to forfeit 50% or more of thier income to support those that did not plan for the future?
Then we come to your "advocating a humanist, enlightenment based government" comment.
Who's idea of "enlightenment"?
Your's, or mine?
The average Republican or the average Democrat?
Many will say we have one of those now, and I am sure you disagree. So what is the subjective definition of "enlightenment"?
Forcing someone to fund your idea of "humanist, enlightenment" is a very dangerous business, since the first regime change it will be you funding their wants idea of "humanist, enlightenment" which most likely will be very different than yours.
We are suppose to have the form of government known as a "Constitutional Limited Republic" not as is commonly thought a "Democracy".
In a democracy, you where out voted it is the will of the people. And if they want to outlaw women going to school all we have to do is vote and no more educated women. Democracy is Mob Rule.
We have rights that are not to be touched by the government. The ones that can be modified by the government and everything else is hands off.
Which do you really think would be better for people?
If you do not believe that people can be expected to act responsibly when it comes to economics then how can they be trusted to do so in the social arena?
Again you seem to want it both ways, but those who pay the bills have always, and will always, dictate the behaviour of those who recieve the payments.
Boy, you sure do love to play the semantics game unless you're on the receiving end! :)
The government of the United States was constituted as a grand humanist experiment born out of the age of Enlightenment. I should have put that capital E in my post so you would have known I wasn't talking about "enlightenment" as it's used in New Age rip-offs of Eastern religion, but rather about the philosophical school of the 18th century. Mea culpa.
Do you really want to privatize law enforcement? Maybe that worked in the past (I don't actually believe it was that successful, but for the sake of argument), but nowadays we call "privatized law enforcement" vigilantism at best, and at worst it looks a lot more like the Mafia.
By the way, did you see me arguing that we live in a Democracy? I don't recall doing it. In fact, I'm the first to lecture on that particular subject when it comes up, espcially vis a vis abortion and gay marriage. Obviously, put to a direct vote both of those things would be outlawed, but that doesn't make banning them okay (or right).
I have been arguing all along that people often choose what is not in their self-interest in the service of the greater good. It's for this reason that I think individuals can certainly be trusted to make decisions for themselves, it's corporations and the hegemonic oligarchy which rule this country that I don't trust.
It's true that there are rights that the government cannot compel us to relinquish. On the other hand, I relinquish rights to some extent on a daily basis as the cost of living in society with other people. I choose to do this because I believe in something more than just my personal benefit. And becasue I know that the deck has been stacked in my favor by hundreds of years of criminal, exploitative behavior on the part of the rich, white men who run this country, and I believe that the benefits I derive from those crimes are not rightfully my own. You believe that they are, and so you countenance the continuation of that exploitation and call it freedom and Libertarianism and free market economics.
Post a Comment