Oh, sorry, I fell asleep for a moment.
I've been meaning to talk about this ongoing Social Security debate for a while, but it's a pretty boring subject and I never know how to make it amusing or interesting, so I always wind up writing dirty jokes about Internet perverts instead. Because they're always amusing and interesting!
But today, I feel I can't not link to this Yahoo article, in which Representative Charles Rangel informs the public that there is no upcoming crisis in Social Security. Here's what Rangel had to say, in a nutshell:
Social Security trustees say the program will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2018, and can pay full promised benefits only until 2042.
"The White House wants Americans to believe that Social Security is heading for an iceberg. They think that, by scaring people, they will help increase support for privatization," Rangel said.
The cost of moving to add private accounts has been estimated at more than $1 trillion. Rangel said the figure would be about $2 trillion, weakening Social Security and leaving future retirees hoping for a miracle from the stock market.
But why would the Bush administration lie to everyone?
If you are asking yourself that question, you have not been paying close attention. Be more cynical!
The Republicans have this privitization scheme all laid out, and they'll be damned if they're going to let silly facts get in the way of instituting their bizarre, draconian, selfish policies.
Anyway, this is the next Karl Rove PR blitz, so prepare yourself. In the coming weeks and months, you'll see a lot of people talking about how the Social Security system is "broken" and we need to "fix it" in order to ensure the health and well-being of "future generations." This is crap. Just remember, when you hear someone saying that stuff, they are obviously lying, becuase this news article today said that they can continue to sustain the Social Security system with no changes until 2042.
But what happens in 2042, you may ask? Well, I sure as hell don't know. Obviously, we need to alter the Social Security system somehow by then, so that people who begin to pay into it in the 2030's aren't ripped off after they reach a certain age. But come on, people! We don't need to overhaul the entire system!
Without getting any more technical (numbers make my head hurt), I'll close out this topic by suggesting that obviously, we need to do something to salvage the Social Security system. Clearly, we can't just sit around and wait for it to fail in 40 years. But do we need to force people to invest part of their savings into the stock market? Do we need to effectively dismantle the system as it currently exists? Or do we need to find some way to make it more fiscally solvent, but keep the same principles that have governed Social Security since the 1940's?
No comments:
Post a Comment