Dems

The history of Social Security includes the individual histories of thousands of this nation’s unfortunate – brought low by forces of the economy, the results of armed conflict, the reality of human aging, or incurable disability.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal rejuvenated the United States, serving as a safety net to counteract economic instability. At its current state, Social Security still benefits these individuals (survivors, the elderly, and the disabled) today, but the instability has shifted.

For there to be a real future for the Social Security system, elected officials must reevaluate recipients’ criteria, avoid funding benefits with false federal surpluses, and realistically and pragmatically consider Social Security’s sustainability for upcoming generations.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes that the future of Social Security is a “real long-term dilemma that involves all medical care, not just care for retirees, and is as much moral as economic.” Social Security hinges on the morality of economic indicators. Who is eligible? Should the survivors of multiple United States recessions, faithful contributors to the system for forty years of their working life, be qualified and categorized for relief based on their current economic situation?

Should Social Security be privatized, allowing the individual to decide for themselves whether they will be a victim or victor when it comes to retirement? Is the actuality that a currently dwindling work force must support a burgeoning pool of recipients sustainable for twenty, ten, or even five years? Indeed, what factors could realistically offset such a disparity between generations?

Social Security entered the bureaucratic, immobile stage of public policy long ago. It is now an automatic guarantee, a mistaken entitlement, an untouchable institution. Social Security needs to be touched, its recipients tried along with those it burdens, its advantages tested against its damages.

Without Social Security, 11.5 million elderly Americans would live in poverty.

Assessing the present economic status of potential beneficiaries would ensure that those blessed by the providence of wealth would not receive federal benefits out of proportion with their actual needs.

Granted, this “means testing” could insult some Americans’ financial success by denying them their public privilege. To restore integrity and practicality to Social Security, however, this is one of the moral compromises that must be made.

President George W. Bush supports the privatization of Social Security, which is not a moral compromise.

Privatization leaves the fate of the retirement of individual citizens to the sometimes-murderous fluctuation of the stock market and to the possibility of misinformed or uninformed personal choices. And private accounts, unlike Social Security, may run out. This is not responsible public stewardship. Instead of protecting the Social Security fund, Republicans are spending the money on tax breaks for special interests, while promoting a privatization scheme coupled with a raise in the retirement age.

The original conception of Social Security as a guaranteed safety net for retired Americans is now turning the corner on insecurity. But only if you allow it.

Social Security concerns all ages, all generations…all voters. Do not concede to the Republican party the discretion to increase taxes on working Americans (you), decrease benefits to future recipients (you), or arbitrarily extend the retirement age for current and future taxpayers (you).

Start taking politics personally, before your future is taken away to pay for past mistakes.

GOP

Social Security is doomed to failure. By 2020, according to projections made by the trustees of the Social Security system, the money being paid out of the system will be more than the money being taken in. There will be 80 million senior recipients, compared to the 40 million in America today. By 2030, the fund is projected to run out of money. In the year 2025 there will be 2.2 people paying into the fund for every person taking out. This is a steep decline from the 16.5 people paying into Social Security in 1950.

There is little disagreement that Social Security needs an overhaul. However, differences arise when it comes to deciding between the ideas that will be effective at solving the problem, and the ideas that are just friendly words from politicians who want to win elections. This coming election could be one of the most important in our nation’s history. We are at the brink of making a decision, and the person we chose as our next president may very well be the one to reform or “reform” the Social Security system.

The basic difference between President George W. Bush and Sen. Kerry comes down to the central tenets of their parties. Democrats believe when something’s broken, it must need more funding. Republicans take a look at how to fix the problem at the source. You need to look no farther than the debate of Social Security to see this manifest itself.

Sen. Kerry wishes to tax us more, specifically the elderly. In fact, Kerry voted for increased taxes on seniors at least eight times! By doing this, he hopes to bring more funds into Social Security, thus solving the problem of it becoming under-funded before 2030. However, all Kerry is doing is perpetuating the problem. By raising taxes, Kerry has not remedied the problem – just postponed it.

To the contrary, President Bush wishes to correct the situation through reforming the Social Security system. He accomplishes this in a number of ways both within the framework of Social Security as it exists and outside of the system entirely. To begin, President Bush believes that the citizens of America should have some discretion over what occurs to their Social Security money.

To accomplish this, President Bush believes that all Americans should be able to invest a part of their Social Security money in financial assets not limited to stocks thus risk is averted through diversification. This gives every American the opportunity to begin investments, and also, through interest and appreciation, begins to add money to the Social Security fund that would narrow the gap in funding the system without raising taxes. In fact, it is projected by notable economists that the interest from the investments will so effectively accomplish its goal that taxes could actually be cut in the future.

To supplement this very innovative and effective program, President Bush has also proposed reform in retirement programs outside of Social Security. For example, President Bush wants to give employees who invest in their 401(k) for at least three years the freedom to choose where their money is being invested.

He also signed into law “catch-up” contributions to retirement plans for people who took time off of work to care for family. Likewise, he signed legislation that allows divorced women, widows, and the poor more access to Social Security benefits. Through tax cuts, President Bush has freed $50 billion that can be directly put into retirement investments, thus encouraging Americans to save for their futures.

It’s quite obvious what the difference is between John Kerry and President Bush. President Bush has a vision that would make retirement for every American an achievable goal, whereas all John Kerry can think about is taking your money away…again.