When it comes to debating what to do with Social Security, it seems that the most vocal sides are out of touch with the American public. But it also seems that the most vocal sides are at least somewhat in touch with public opinion. What is going on here?
Let’s look the history of the Social Security program. The great savior FDR looked out upon his economically disadvantaged constituents, especially the elderly, and said, “Lo, here is a great inequity. Let us make a New Deal to ensure that the elderly and disabled in our nation have sufficient for their needs.”
But support for outright transfer of wealth was hard to be found, and thus, it was necessary to provide incentives to make the program seem good to income producers. And so it was sold as a self investment plan to bolster one’s own retirement. Only those that contributed for a given number of quarters would receive benefits, except that those disabled would also receive benefits. And it seemed good to the princes. And so it was written, and so it was done.
And all was good, for in the beginning there were more than 20 workers to support each non-worker, average life expectancy was less than retirement age, and the tax was only 2% (albeit, with a steady rise to 6% over a 14-year period that was eventually extended to a 24-year period).
But lo, and behold, soon cries of dismay were heard that there were yet other disadvantaged people that were not covered by Social Security. And soon the princes found it worthy to expand the program to cover these poor souls. And there was much rejoicing, especially among those that did not provide for themselves.
But the people did not produce posterity at the rate of their fathers, and with more souls covered by the program, the ratio of workers supporting non-workers fell, causing great dismay. But great fortune smiled upon the people insomuch that their increased productivity rate compensated much for these shortcomings.
Nevertheless, the princes saw fit to raise the tax rate repeatedly until it stood at 12.4%, and the benefit rate was reduced for those with earnings exceeding a basic amount. The retirement age was also raised to reflect an increased life expectancy. Thus there began to be those that had retired and could still work, but refused to do so because working garnered no net gain.
Then lo, a cry from the plan trustees that unless revamped the plan would go broke. But few wished to make any serious attempt to resolve the problem, preferring to leave it as an inheritance to their posterity. And thus the financial status of the plan languished.
And that’s where we are today, folks. Many proposals to save Social Security are bandied about, but nobody seems to be biting. There are even those that use all kinds of high-falutin’ statistical models to make believe that the system is not imperiled. But it is clear that the plan cannot survive simply by continuing with its present structure. Something must change.
But what do we change? President Bush offered to partially privatize the plan to make it more of an investment plan. This modest plan was rejected. Nancy Pelosi has promised that Democrats in the 110th Congress will staunchly oppose any privatization efforts. That leaves only a few options, all of which are untenable to one or more powerful groups.
We could raise the tax on wages. This disincentivizes productivity and income production from working. It’s a hard sell to the workers and businesses that would bear this burden. We could increase the retirement age to reflect the realities of our population’s increased productive life expectancy. Try to get that one past the powerful AARP lobby.
We could cap benefits, denying them to retirees that continue to work or that have been responsible enough to spend their working lives saving for retirement, because “they can afford it.” Never mind the amounts they paid into a system that was promoted to them as a retirement investment. Sure, it was, but for their neighbors rather than for themselves. We could also ignore the problem until it reaches critical mass a generation or so down the road. Now, there’s a great legacy to leave to our posterity.
The problem is that none of these possible solutions are politically palatable. The only one that even approaches political viability is the ostrich approach, where we hide our heads and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. I’m betting that this approach is most likely to be the one that is ultimately adopted by our politicians over the next two years.
I’ll write another post at some point down the road on why I think this is such a difficult problem to solve and how the roots of this problem impact almost all things political in our nation.
"Kama inakuja kwa mjadala wa nini cha kufanya na usalama wa kijamii, inaonekana kwamba pande za sauti zaidi ni nje ya kuwasiliana na umma wa Marekani. """ Lakini pia inaonekana kwamba pande zenye sauti kubwa zaidi angalau zinawasiliana kwa kiasi fulani na maoni ya umma. Ni nini kinachoendelea hapa? Hebu tuangalie historia ya mpango wa Usalama wa Jamii. "Mwokozi mkuu FDR aliangalia wapiga kura wake walio chini ya hali ya kiuchumi, hasa wazee, na akasema, ""Tazama, hapa kuna ukosefu mkubwa wa usawa." "Hebu tufanye mpango mpya kuhakikisha kwamba wazee na walemavu katika taifa letu wana kutosha kwa mahitaji yao, lakini msaada kwa uhamisho wa moja kwa moja wa utajiri ulikuwa mgumu kupata, na hivyo ilikuwa muhimu kutoa motisha ili kufanya programu hiyo ionekane nzuri kwa wazalishaji wa mapato. """ Na hivyo iliuzwa kama mpango wa uwekezaji binafsi ili kuimarisha kustaafu kwa mtu mwenyewe. Ni wale tu ambao walichangia kwa idadi fulani ya robo watapokea faida, isipokuwa kwamba wale walemavu pia watapata faida. Na ikaonekana kuwa nzuri kwa wakuu. Na hivyo ndivyo ilivyoandikwa, na hivyo ndivyo ilivyotendeka. Na yote yalikuwa mazuri, kwa sababu mwanzoni kulikuwa na zaidi ya wafanyakazi 20 kuunga mkono kila mtu asiyefanya kazi, wastani wa maisha ya matarajio ilikuwa chini ya umri wa kustaafu, na kodi ilikuwa 2% tu (ingawa, na ongezeko la kudumu hadi 6% kwa kipindi cha miaka 14 ambayo hatimaye ilipanuliwa hadi miaka 24). Lakini, tazama, upesi kilio cha mshangao kilisikika kwamba kulikuwa na watu wengine waliopungukiwa ambao hawakuwa wamefunikwa na Usalama wa Jamii. Na upesi wakuu waliiona inafaa kupanua programu hiyo ili kufunika nafsi hizi maskini. Na kulikuwa na shangwe nyingi, hasa miongoni mwa wale ambao hawakujiandalia wenyewe. Lakini watu hawakuzalisha wazao kwa kiwango cha baba zao, na kwa roho zaidi zilizofunikwa na programu, uwiano wa wafanyakazi wanaounga mkono wasio wafanyakazi ulipungua, na kusababisha mshtuko mkubwa. Lakini bahati kubwa ilinyeshea watu kwa kiasi kwamba kiwango chao cha uzalishaji kilichoongezeka kililipia sana mapungufu haya. Hata hivyo, watawala waliona ni vizuri kuongeza kiwango cha kodi mara kwa mara hadi ikawa 12.4%, na kiwango cha faida kilipunguzwa kwa wale wenye mapato zaidi ya kiasi cha msingi. Umri wa kustaafu pia uliongezwa ili kuonyesha ongezeko la muda wa kuishi. Hivyo wakaanza kuwapo wale waliokuwa wamestaafu na bado wangeweza kufanya kazi, lakini wakakataa kufanya hivyo kwa sababu kufanya kazi hakukuwa na faida yoyote. Kisha, tazama, kilio kutoka kwa wasimamizi wa mpango kwamba isipokuwa upya mpango huo ungeenda kufilisika. Lakini ni wachache waliotaka kufanya jaribio lolote la kweli la kutatua tatizo hilo, wakipendelea kuliacha kama urithi kwa wazao wao. Na hivyo hali ya kifedha ya mpango huo ikafifia. Na hapo ndipo tupo leo, watu. Mapendekezo mengi ya kuokoa Usalama wa Jamii yanatangazwa, lakini hakuna mtu anayeonekana kuwa akila. Kuna hata wale ambao kutumia kila aina ya high-falutin <unk> mifano ya takwimu kufanya kuamini kwamba mfumo si hatarini. Lakini ni wazi kwamba mpango huo hauwezi kuishi kwa kuendelea tu na muundo wake wa sasa. Lazima jambo fulani libadilike. Lakini tunabadilisha nini? Rais Bush alitoa mpango wa kugeuza sehemu ya mpango huo kuwa wa uwekezaji. Mpango huo mdogo ulikataliwa. Nancy Pelosi ameahidi kuwa chama cha Democrat katika bunge la 110 litapinga vikali juhudi zozote za ubinafsishaji. Hiyo inaacha tu chaguzi chache, ambazo zote haziwezi kudumishwa kwa kikundi kimoja au zaidi chenye nguvu. Twaweza kuongeza kodi ya mishahara. Hii disincentivizes uzalishaji na uzalishaji wa mapato kutoka kufanya kazi. Ni ngumu kuuza kwa wafanyakazi na biashara ambayo ingekuwa kubeba mzigo huu. Tunaweza kuongeza umri wa kustaafu ili kutafakari hali halisi ya idadi ya watu wetu kuongezeka kwa matarajio ya maisha ya uzalishaji. Kwa hivyo, ni muhimu sana kuepuka kuwa na wasiwasi juu ya lobby ya AARP. "Tungeweza kuweka kikomo cha faida, na kuwazuia wastaafu ambao wanaendelea kufanya kazi au ambao wamekuwa na jukumu la kutosha kutumia maisha yao ya kazi kuokoa kwa kustaafu, kwa sababu ""wanaweza kuidhinisha.""" Bila shaka, ilikuwa hivyo, lakini kwa ajili ya majirani zao badala ya kwa ajili yao wenyewe. Tunaweza pia kupuuza tatizo hilo hadi lifikie kiwango muhimu kizazi kimoja au zaidi baadaye. Sasa, kuna urithi mkubwa wa kuachia kwa vizazi vyetu. Tatizo ni kwamba hakuna mojawapo ya suluhisho hizo zinazowezekana ambazo zinafaa kisiasa. Moja tu ambayo hata inakaribia uwezekano wa kisiasa ni mbinu ya mbuni, ambapo sisi kuficha vichwa vyetu na kujifanya tatizo haipo. Mimi ni beting kwamba mbinu hii ni uwezekano mkubwa kuwa moja ambayo ni hatimaye kupitishwa na wanasiasa wetu katika miaka miwili ijayo. Nitaandika chapisho jingine wakati fulani barabarani juu ya kwa nini nadhani hii ni tatizo gumu kutatua na jinsi mizizi ya tatizo hili athari karibu mambo yote ya kisiasa katika taifa letu.