The policy of Social Security reform, by itself, improves the economic operation of the system. Consider: capital accretions are governed under a system with larger returns than the original. Therefore, the ideal would stipulate that the objective is to win the citizen the highest stipend upon retirement.
So why wouldn't you want it?
The current system is tanking. How's that? Well, more Americans are set to retire than those who are set to be working. That's a problem, and the inequality is only expected to increase over time.
Social Security right now faces an unfunded liability of $26 trillion, and it will enter The Red in 2018. Bankruptcy is expected to follow in 2042. These numbers are estimates, but many economists are guaranteeing an eventual (but undetermined) bankruptcy, based on the obvious arguments I just cited.
And thus, we arrive at Advantage Two: The stock market will never face a deficit.
Additionally, even the pundits who recently denied the existence of Social Security's impending difficulties are attempting to adumbrate solutions. They say to raise the retirement age, raise taxes (how shocking), or have means testing.
Thus, we arrive at Advantage Three: The stock market, being tied to the lifeline of the American economy, will never require federal maintenance.
As all things, we also find that it is ideal to give personal control to individuals. The rhetoric painting Social Security as a community effort to rescue indigent seniors is persuasive, but not as alluring as the concept of workers enjoying personal control over the funds that they expect to someday pass on to their children.
One of the disappointments, however, of the national debate is that the arrant absurdity of the statist position is not being observed.
Don't Break Social Security! They ululate endlessly. The President Wants To Sell Seniors To Wall Street Greed!
After rational individuals experience one of the following: nausea, anger, incredulity, we ask what our response should be.
Hold on a second, but break Social Security? Who is trying to break Social Security? Do some honestly think that Republicans are meeting in sub rosa conferences where they gleefully are envisioning octogenarians working 40 hours a week at McDonalds? Where exactly does that model get them?
When a human perceives an inescapable situation, behavior becomes exaggerated. In a debate, it manifests itself in a variety of ways. The embarrassed opponent may deliver ad hominem rebuttals, become visibly agitated, or perhaps completely lose all sang froid.
In the national debate, it manifests itself in arguments like the ones just mentioned. No honest discourse, no Hegelian dialectic, not even philosophical dissent. They simply ignore the fact that their accusations could not be true in any iteration of this universe.
They employ a red herring simply because it is convenient. As the gay rights opposition cleverly distorts a secular issue under an applied lens of religious intransigence, the opposite side of the aisle deludes the public into this phantasmagoria where unctuous Republican strategists are plotting the extermination of the Old Folks.
The debate then gets dragged through the mud. The two positions become irreconcilable. How exactly do we expect a man who thinks George W. Bush is trying to starve senior citizens have a constructive discussion with someone who thinks private accounts can offer the individual greater financial benefits?
Our apathetic generation has a chance to find our voice in this issue. P.Diddy and Vote or Die failed to capture our imaginations. Michael Moore's hortatory pleas for a youth coup to unseat Mr. Bush became an unfulfilled dream. The question is, will our collective retirements give us a cohesive voice?
Even if not, it would at least be an achievement if this issue allowed any vicissitude in the national debate. Perhaps cable news guests can represent something other than scurrilous accusations of demagogy responded to by angry indictments of alleged heartlessness. Maybe this is naked idealism, but is there room for skilled analysis?
It is often ignored that the people earned this money. It is not an unassailable argument that this capital is irretrievably within the domain of the state.
It is unintelligible to the elites, but it's time we demand to control our own lives.
The Washington establishment considers the principle of private control beyond the scope of reason. Tax increases are not called such, but a "roll back of tax cuts." A reduction in the level of increased funding is called a "funding cut."
Perhaps it is the idealistic youth who can successfully remind the establishment that taxes originally accrued to the benefit of the American worker. No, the consideration is not yours whether you can bestow, as lagniappe, control over our retirements. The consideration is ours whether we choose to steer this fiscal Titanic away from the iceberg of frozen red ink.
Yes, retirement is important. Yes, we desire to have a strong safety net. Yes, we want to foster a strong sense of family. These are the reasons why we desire private control over our finances.
It is highly fortunate that our elected leaders are making the inroads into the infamous Third Rail of American politics. It is a policy that is timed perfectly, and allows the young generation a collective cause.
Not all is looking good, though.
"Once people educate themselves about the real issue of the plan -- and we know the plan includes a cut in guaranteed benefits in order to make this privatization scheme happen -- younger people are opposed to it," said Brian Richardson, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee "youth outreach program".
Yeah, and once people realize the truth about this damn capitalism scheme, the workers of the world will finally rise up and throw off their chains.
The above work is the opinion of the author,
and not necessarily that of the Prometheus Institute.
