Call It Socialism Security
By Vincent Fiore (02/22/05)
In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress passed the Social Security Act, part of a system envisioned by FDR to provide a secure retirement for Americans. Social Security benefits were never meant the stand alone as a retirement vehicle, but rather to be just a part of Roosevelt’s vision, which included personal savings and private pensions. Call it the retirement tripod.
Today, tens of millions of Americans are faced with the reality that one leg of that tripod is seriously weakening, and will surely collapse in the future. One does not have to be a Wall Street actuary or work for the Social Security Administration to know that the prospect of Social Security as we know it today will not be the Social Security of tomorrow's retirees.
In 1935, a 65-year-old person was basically expected to live some 12 years more. Today, a 65-year-old is expected to live an additional 17 years more; by the year 2040, the average person will live 19 years more.
In 1950, 16 workers supported each Social Security recipient. Today, that number is 3 to 1; by the year 2030, it will be 2 to 1.
In 2002, 45% of Social Security retirees opted for early retirement benefits at age 62. In 1960, that number was 23%.
As documented by the Heritage Foundation in 2002, the above numbers represent just some of the problems that have made Social Security anything but secure for the future. If Congress--and the voters who elect them—do nothing, Social Security will take on aspect of a futuristic government-run soup line, barely able to provide enough economic sustenance to survive, let alone enjoy.
By 2077, the unfunded liability of Social Security will be a mind-warping 25 trillion dollars.
So is easy to see why there's so much apprehension among elected officials. The problems of Social Security are mammoth, and these problems stretch over into future generations. Something must be done, and it must be done now. Enter President Bush.
Bush has begun to open a dialogue that Washington passed over for many years. Bush has laid a few markers down for Social Security personal accounts, but remains open to ideas.
Democrats--whose solution to the runaway train wreck of Social Security was to gather around the FDR Memorial in the National Mall in staged solidarity for media consumption--have exhibited much heavy-breathing and unvarnished hostility towards Bush’s idea of personal accounts.
Democratic Party leaders have labeled the Bush plan as “Roulette” and a “Wall Street windfall.” Last year’s presidential runner-up, John Kerry, termed the president’s plan for personal accounts as a “Rip-off.”
But Democrats know, for all their heated chest-pounding, that Social Security is mired in insolvency. From former President Clinton on down to the most junior House member, Democrats know. They know that doing nothing is not an option.
Forget all the numbers and projections for a minute regarding Social Security. Instead, think of that statue of FDR and the Democratic Party leaders like Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer who adoringly and longingly surrounded it. Not just a ten foot chunk of bronze, but a 75-year legacy of the Democratic Party’s socialistic tendencies was what Democratic Party leaders were lamenting over that day.
For today’s Democratic Party sees more and more of its liberal forefathers public-enslaving programs going by the wayside, the primary reason for their near-uniform intractability when facing the prospect of personal and privately owned Social Security accounts for all Americans who desire them.
Social Security, in its present form, will one day join the ranks of other socialized programs created by Democrats during their golden days, like massive government-sponsored public works, Keynesian economics, and the welfare-state that was the “Great Society.”
Democrats know that these institutions of socialism cannot stand up to an enlightened and informed society, and they hear the bell tolling for their most enduring legacy: Social Security.
It is the thought of millions of people actually deciding for themselves their own economic future--without the suffocation of government--that drives the Democratic Party of today to react to Social Security reform as Dracula reacts to the cross.
The debate over Social Security will rage on for months to come. If you listen hard, and cut through the rhetorical fog, you will hear FDR’s last great Socialistic remedy come ever-so-slowly crashing down, thereby freeing those who desire a remedy for economic independence in old-age, as opposed to government dependency for the masses.
While the rest of the country views Social Security as the main economic problem of our time, Democrats cannot help but see it as the premiere Socialist program of a time gone by. Socialism Security will die a slow death, but die it will. RIP.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Vincent Fiore
