The State of Union address was better delivered and more informative than I expected. So often these addresses are full of pie-in-the-sky proposals which have me begging the question, "who pays for this?" Sort of like my husband telling me he wants to move to Chile, open a vineyard, motorcycle across Siberia, live a year in Ireland, go into space, etc. Oh, but that's another subject. And thank you Mr. President for listing clear reasons for updating the social security system. Somehow all the "welfare" policies and systems adapted by FDR in the 30s have become sacred cows. Any discussion of updating them is tantamount to heresy. I have been waiting for this discussion of social security to enter the national stage for over ten years, since college. Under the discourse of my Economics 101 professors, I became aware of the tenuous scenario upon which social security is based.
Young people give and old people receive. This is a "moral value" (by the way, love all the Democrat SOTU responses using that term - ha ha) with historical resonance and real-life practice. In my family, even though the older generation has made choices of delaying immediate gratification to save for their older years, the younger generation still pitches in to help with maybe a new appliance or roof. And some of our renters receive and very much depend upon their social security payments. It IS a responsible society that cares for its elderly, even if it is a socialized governmental-run system (which also gives the younger generation an excuse to NOT provide or feel responsibility for the older generation, but that is just one of the problems of socialized programs, letting a big nameless bureaucracy take over OUR responsibility toward certain "less valuable" members of our society, but I'm getting off track here).
But the problem is of a budgetary quality, an economic problem if you will. The big "squeeze". Fewer and fewer young people paying toward more and more older people. (And as another aside, the Democrats stating that Bush is wrong to say that the system will be bankrupt in 2042 because "70% of people will still get their benefits." Well, it is my understanding that if I only can pay 70% of my bills, I am considered bankrupt. Am I right?) So rather than tackling the problem in the future when the younger generation will be forced to pay more or the older generation will have to receive less, the obvious solution involves something called SAVINGS.
Yes, that's right, there is no savings going on right now. It is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. But a fabulous thing called compounding interest can allow Peter to save Peter's own money to pay Peter in the future in an larger amount instead of a return of 0%. And with the prevalence of 401(k)s we are all probably watching this transpire as I write (even with the 2001 market negative returns).
As a 33 year old, I haven't run into anyone my age who is planning on collecting social security so what is the problem? I think in the explanation and sales pitch. Tonight the explanation worked. It was straight forward and plain. To anyone who has managed a family budget it was logical. The sales pitch will be a little harder only because vast numbers of my friends and peers have an illogically emotional reaction to President Bush. So hopefully a neutral party can "sell" this on its merits, values and needs. And enough already from the complaining Democrats that never have a proposal they like and a whole lot they hate. Let's see if bold action can come from Washington this year.
Comments