"saving" social security or securing economic chicanery (9/12/06)

"saving" social security or securing economic chicanery
September 12, 2006


Yet another obfuscation of the GW Bush administration is the controversy they have created over "saving" Social Security. The so-called shortfall is not about actual monies collected from workers' payroll taxes, but the fact that these funds have been used to offset government spending short-falls generally in a growing political culture of irresponsibility as regards the U.S. economy.

Bill Clinton spoke to us from the standpoint that we could all band together for mutual benefit (even if the gain was not always equitable). GW Bush, however, seems to be all about dividing us against ourselves for the benefit of those in position to exploit us.

In the case of Bush's grand gesture to save Social Security, there is no need to "fix" Social Security in order to continue the level of payouts that recipients have grown to expect. The problem here is not in the program, but in misrepresentations about the effects of currently projected demographics. Of much more concern if these figures were projections of an actual future should be the lack of labor force in comparison to retirees, leaving too few people to take up the work that will need to be done (especially with such a large retired community in need of services), and thus also lowering the tax base. 

In the foreseeable future, as more of the demographic bulge retires, there will come opportunities in a variety of circumstances for a much greater base of employment. There will be the services industries fueled by the needs and desires of retirees. There are already a plethora of projects greatly in need of organizing by folks who can find a way to profit from a creative business plan. Bringing in new blood, fresh ideas from people not so tied to the status quo could help to catalyze the process. Then, there is always the new, unanticipated technologies as well as new, unanticipated crises that our quickly changing world is so prone to develop. The thing is, what we need to encourage these kinds of economic development is an atmosphere of open inquiry and a shared flow of ideas, not the "compassionate conservatism" of catering to wealthy interest groups, keeping us mired in a status quo as long as the status continues to go to those interests.

As many people are indeed more able to work for longer years, the rationale for raising the retirement age would be to keep more people in the workforce doing the work. However, this could also be accomplished by immigration policy to bring in more younger workers. In light of the oversupply of unemployed young adults in much of the world, such a policy could also work to the advantage of the U.S. in international relations and other foreign policy concerns.

My big peeve about the Social Security system is the cap on income eligible for payroll taxation. If we took the tax all the way to the last dollar, there would be plenty available to seriously lower the percentage of taxation, taking more of the burden off of the lower paid workers. I am sure that there are other positive changes that could be made to improve the system and better serve the social function of taking care of our old and infirm in a manner that honors their social contributions and affords them respect.

The Bush doctrine on Social Security is not at all about serving such laudable social goals. It is about pitting the haves and hope to haves against the already burdened. It is about inciting our insecurity, rather than inspiring our creative spirit.

see:  http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html
- Social Security Q&A: Separating Fact from Fiction BY DOUG ORR