Republicans' and Democrats' Refusal To Reform Social Security and Medicare Is Political Malpractice
In 10 years, the programs' funds will be insolvent. Over the next 30 years, they will run a $116 trillion shortfall.

Republicans and Democrats have been tripping over each other to tell voters how committed they are to making zero changes to Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile, the Social Security and Medicare Trustees just confirmed yet again that within 10 years the programs' funds will be insolvent.
It's hard to forget the scene during the most recent State of the Union address, when President Joe Biden accused Republicans of wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare and Republicans—including one who shouted from her seat—called that a lie. The mutual refusal to take responsibility for the nasty fiscal condition of entitlement programs is decades old. Indeed, the findings of the Trustees' report are not surprising to anyone who follows these programs' finances.
Social Security, readers might remember, has been relying on its trust funds' IOU since 2010 to fully pay for retirees' benefits. Assets are running low and will be gone by 2033. When that happens, it won't be authorized to make the entirety of these payments—only the amount it collects in payroll taxes. That's a 23 percent cut. You can tell a similar story about the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for Medicare. By 2031, the program will be insolvent, and benefits will be cut by 11 percent. That's an understatement since the solvency calculations exclude Medicare's physician (Part B) and drug (Part D) programs, which face a $1 trillion shortfall over the next decade.
To pretend that Social Security and Medicare shouldn't be touched is nothing short of political malpractice. Over the next 30 years, the two programs will run a $116 trillion shortfall. This number accounts for the significant amount of interest payments on the debt the government will ring up in the process. While we might be able to stumble along indefinitely, all that borrowing will slow—perhaps even halt—our economic growth, making funding the programs that much more difficult.
Every generation has the opportunity and obligation to leave the country better than they found it. The Greatest Generation fought and won World War II; the least the boomers and Gen Xers could do is fix this enormous time bomb we call entitlements.
That will require politicians on both sides of the aisle to come together. Past reforms only worked when they were bipartisan. The 1983 Social Security rescue was negotiated between President Ronald Reagan, House Speaker Tip O'Neill (D–Mass.), the Greenspan Commission, and key Senate members from both parties. This reform held because neither party tried to undo it, since both were invested in it. Perhaps the best example on the Medicare side is the reforms in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, negotiated between a Republican Congress and a Democratic president.
In contrast, partisan reform ideas such as lifting the payroll tax cap or taxing the rich will not work. While each of these ideas might improve solvency a little bit, they aren't nearly sufficient to get the job done.
Besides, solvency isn't the only issue with these programs. First, over 15 percent of our hard-earned wages from every paycheck for our entire lives goes to paying—half of it technically covered by your employer, but you almost definitely pay in the form of lower wages. And even that's not enough since the programs face shortfalls. That might be palatable if young workers could reasonably expect to get it all back someday, which most won't.
Then, these programs are also unfair to certain groups. Working seniors are so penalized by Social Security that they have only weak incentives to earn other money. As my colleague Chuck Blahous has calculated, for every dollar in payroll tax older workers pay, they will get 2.5 cents in benefits. Meanwhile, younger workers must transfer massive amounts of wealth to older Americans who as a group are better off than they are. Under current projections, future workers will lose net income through Social Security exceeding three percent of their lifetime earnings. And there is a good chance these entitlement programs won't be there for them when they are ready to retire.
For a long time, leaders of both parties recognized that entitlement costs were growing unsustainably fast, even if they disagreed on what to do. Former President Barack Obama talked about stopping the rising cost of health care. When he was a senator, President Joe Biden thought all spending, including Social Security and Medicare, should be on the table for reform. Yet as president, Biden now boasts of his refusal to touch these programs.
Both parties need to return to being honest about what's going on.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It is unfortunate...but Republicans are accused, regularly, of trying to slash Social Security when there are no policy proposals to do so nor much of a heart to do it.
Cannot blame them for refusing to participate.
That is part of the Republicans problem, they have no plan. With saw this with the ACA repeal and replace. If you don't have a plan no one can look at it decide. Get a plan an then sell it.
The plan is to get rid of it.
ACA "plan" would be no plan at all.
There was an attempt under Bush to discuss investing SS funds in the market, but Dems said no to that pretty harshly.
to be fair, it WAS a terrible idea.
Online, Google paid $45 per hour. Nine months have passed since my close relative last had a job, but in the previous month she earned $10500 by working 8 hours a day from home. Now is the time for everyone to try this job by using this website…
Click the link—↠ http://Www.Smartjob1.com
Why? I can buy treasury funds in the market and still get a better return thn social insecurity.
Because the plan wasn't buying and holding treasuries - that sort of self-dealing in just an accounting trick that leaves future taxpayers holding the bag when the SSA payouts to retirees exceed the SS tax collections from current workers.
It was to have a federal department of investments - bureaucrats deciding where to invest other people's money in private enterprise, and every Congress-critter with an agenda meddling in their choices. It would veer from plain poor investments because the people handling the money got paid and kept their jobs whether or not the investment performed, to sinking fortunes in companies like Solyndra. The returns would be negative.
Yes, owning your own money and getting better returns is a horrible idea
No replacement is needed. Stop depending on government to solve your problems.
Precisely.
Then sell that and don’t complain when you have few buyers
STEALING things is quite popular especially when people can get away with it...... Until; one day they have nothing left to steal.
Can't have a first world society without a social safety net.
You are so right. Workers need to unionize and force companies to reinstate private pensions because according to you "conservatives", SS is failing.
Didn't realize Social Security and Medicare Trustees are all conservatives. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, we need expensive pensions where the leaders get rich and the workers get nothing. Right Comrade?
Complete nonsense. ACA repeal WAS the plan - prior to the Unafordable Health Scam, we had the best medical health care in the world. Now we are borderline third world, and prices have tripled.
It only failed because a bitter loser (McCain failed in his Presidential bid) turned traitor to his constituents and the American people.
No Republicans promised repeal and replace. They couldn’t deliver on the replace. This is why they can’t sell SS reform.
Leftists: Paul Ryan's plan is proof that the Republicans want to cut SS.
Also leftists: The Republicans have no plan.
Speaker Ryan proposed plans to reform SSA and Medicare; that is a matter of public record. Both plans were viable.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> GOOGLE WORK
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Not to worry, the CDC and government doctors are working on the next Pandemic to knock off the old people. Seems covid didn't do the job they expected. While the jab's after effects are working at this too, it is going way to slow. The old people must be killed to save their retirement years!
"Both parties need to return to being honest about what's going on."
Social Security and Medicare have long been called "the third rail" of American politics, you touch them and you die. Creating a highly motivated constituency to protect these programs was a major part of the political purpose of them. The politics surrounding this was what was intended, if they never thought about these programs becoming unsustainable. There is no surprise about how the politicians are acting.
Member when Republicans ran ads accusing Ds of throwing granny off the Cliff in her wheelchair? Neither do I
bOaF sIdEs!!!
The ease at which this issue is to demagogue by the Democrats is the main reason politically the New Deal Democrats implemented it in the first place.
They were NEVER honest about social security program, from the beginning.
Correct.
Totalitarians cannot ever afford to be honest. Truth is an existential to all schemes to gain unlimited power.
A 23% cut seems like a pretty good solution to me. That still makes Social Security far more generous than pension plans in Europe.
Other than that, this article is meaningless drivel with no content. There are simple political reasons why nobody is touching this.
It’s not “malpractice”, it’s the natural outcome of how politics and power work in a democracy with universal suffrage. The idea that you can have a system of universal suffrage and not have this outcome is naive beyond belief.
The correct answer (presuming we keep them at all) would be to privatize it (and slowly transition to the privatized version). FICA would no longer be “taxes,” but “mandatory savings” channeled to individual accounts. Government could not touch those accounts; the only way to increase “benefits” would be to increase deposits.
Most issues are far too important to be left to politicians.
I, think we're putting way, too much emphasis on the insolvency issue.
$5 says we pass a bill, saying SS gets funded from general fund revenues, just like it is being funded today. We just admit the SS Trust Fund was an accounting fiction with no effect on cash flows.
I actually like this because it dispenses with the fig leaf of "I paid in and just want my money back."
While I'm not taking your bet, you do realize that is mentioned above and will add 119 trillion dollars to the debt.
Social security was in a lockbox!
I agree it's all fiction. I'm paying for my mom. I don't expect squat.
As much as I hate social security on moral grounds, the simple fact is that Ms de Rugy's scenarios will never come to play. There will never be a cut in annual benefits. We will merely see the age of eligibility increased.
This is how the systems work. If you are a new worker in a Union shop, you get stuck with all the cuts. Your long-timers are getting lavish pensions, while you get smaller pensions. And when you are calling the shots as a long timer, you will preserve what's yours and make the new-comers take the hit by getting even smaller pensions.
So it will go for Social Security- the kids graduating college today will have to wait until they are 70 or 72 to start drawing benefits, and to ensure that they get what's theirs, they will insist that the next generations wait until 75 or 80.
Again, I don't like how this works, but it is the most likely outcome. It is already being proposed in the house.
It's more likely the government will borrow money to cover the shortfall than raise the age of eligibility.
Nope. SS will be scrapped and replace with a means-tested welfare program for the elderly. Affluent retirees who have paid in will get screwed. Expecting most people to continue working into their 70s or even 80s is science fiction. Bodies and brains wear out; skills and education become obsolete.
This will not happen for exactly the reasons you say- "Affluent retirees who have paid in [would] get screwed." Those are the people writing these laws and supporting those legislators- not kids in their 20s who are half as likely to vote. Those kids will be sold a bunch of hopium about how they are saving grandma from eating catfood, and told that by the time they are old, 70 will essentially be the new 60 (or whatever). You are never going to get a 58 year old, relatively affluent retiree to vote for benefit cuts, just as you will never get a 58 year old long time union member to vote for a contract that cuts his pension. They will always sock it to the younger generations. Always.
And by the way, while some democrats foolishly talk about making Social Security a means tested welfare, it is unlikely to happen because, again, it takes a broad coalition of voters to support that notion. Paying 15% of your paycheck to a program that doesn't benefit you and in fact benefits people who didn't save is not ever going to be popular. If Social Security becomes means tested, it will only be through a major slash in the actual FICA tax rate, and no one in government is ever going to be willing to do that.
A sane compromise system would probably be something like "You are forced to invest 10% of your income into an IRA and the other 5% is diverted to a welfare fund." But, again, no government official would ever accede to such a pay cut to Uncle Sam.
Means tested.... Like the people who make less (put less in) get proportionally more out? Already happens. Or if you make money in retirement you get less benefits? Already happens.
Social insecurity is means tested at least two ways.
Yep.
That is indeed the most likely outcome.
We were scammed; Congress stole and spent the money (along with $32 trillion our children will have to repay).
Debt is slavery.
They didn't steal it, they borrowed it.
The IOUs are in a file cabinet in West Virginia. (thank you Sen. Byrd)
No, they stole it. It’s all gone now, spent along with another $32 trillion we don’t have.
Increasing the age for full benefits would be fairly perverse at the moment. Life expectancy has actually been dropping in the US, and only about half of that can be put on COVID. There is also an increasing gap in life expectancy between different socioeconomic groups. Those that need SS the most are the groups seeing life expectancy decrease the most.
2020 expectancy, 71.6 years
1935 life expectancy, 61 - 64 (sources vary)
The average life expectancy in the US was 77.28 years in 2020, which is 12 - 15 years longer than it was when SS was created. It is lower for men than it is for women.
Average life expectancy is less important when you consider that a large percentage of retirees are living into their 80's and 90's. It's those people who retire at 62 and then live 30 more years that are causing the problem. Averages aren't important and can be skewed by outliers.
"Those that need welfare the most are the groups seeing life expectancy decrease the most."
These are the ones that lived a horribly unhealthy life style and spent their foodstamps on snacks and coke while they worked the least for the lowest pay. They already get up to five times as much for every dollar paid in as I do - not that this means their SS is enough to live on, because down in the bottom-most tier, someone can pay in 1/25th as me from 16 to 67, and now gets SS payments 1/5th of mine.
I love how we keep ignoring one of the biggest causes for the infirmity of SS, expanded disability payments from social security. A program that has constantly expanded under Democrats.
https://www.investors.com/news/ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama/
Democrats have done everything in their power to pay people not to work. It is one of the biggest drivers of insolvency yet almost gets no mention.
Anytime the GOP does try to reform, they are shouted down by media and Democrats. And they have tried reform. They have tried reigning in things like disability payments.
Here is a proposal just 6 months ago.
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2022/12/12/house-gop-budget-framework-sets-70-as-full-social-security-claiming-age/
But reason will never acknowledge that their industry is one of the largest impediments to reform. They pretend nobody wants to do anything. Instead of encouraging programs like above they join in woth the media assault of both sides, staying quiet as dems say Republicans want to kill grandma.
Amazing to see them push narratives like this article when those proposals from the GOP do exist.
Democrats meanwhile continue to push for expanding Medicare and social security, making it more insolvent.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/15/what-democrats-call-for-social-security-reform-means-for-benefits.html
And plans such as:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-social-security_n_63ea9921e4b0808b91c1f518
But both sides are exactly equal.
An actual article that does real research into the proposal differences from Republicans and democrats.
Gop largely cost cutting and reducing outlays. Democrats increasing benefits and raising taxes.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2022/11/05/democrats-republicans-want-change-social-security/
But both sides are equal...
Sure Hitler and the Nazis were bad, but what about how awful Mao was? The third reich might not have been perfect but it's the best we've got and if you don't support it that makes you a communist!
That is both completely inappropriate and utterly ignorant.
In our system, we make gradual changes; we don’t make laws that create instant radical change.
The Republican proposals would move things in the right direction, the Democratic proposals move it in the wrong direction.
But the US middle class is going to vote to move things in the wrong direction.
Because they have been encouraged by progressives to think they are entitled to benefits that they have "paid for".
To be fair, if the federal government hadn't put the money into treasuries and it had instead been privately invested, people who retire after 40 years of working probably would have earned their Social Security payments.
The system is going bankrupt because: (1) government treats the Social Security "trust fund" as a low interest piggy bank, and (2) there are people who get out much more than they paid in and also much more than other welfare systems would give them.
Media and Democrats represent the predominant will of the people: the American middle class wants free handouts and they are going to get them. Republicans oppose this at their own peril.
I’m not approving that. I’m saying that the American middle class is greedy and entitled and they are going to vote accordingly.
“Media and Democrats…”
That’s redundant.
Expect the middle class is stinking. Try the lower class who doesn't want to work and thing everything belongs to them.
There will be increases in the age of eligibility and the program will be funded by general tax revenue in addition to the payroll tax. As others have said this is the third rail of politics and benefits will never be reduced.
Democrats actively call to increase benefits.
If there are no reforms, it would lead to a 23% spending cut. That's a good thing.
Working Online from home and earns more than $15k every month. I have received $17365 last month by doing online work from home. Its an easy and simple job to do from home and even a little child can do this online and makes money.Everybody can get this job.
Now and earns more dollars online by just………………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Oh they are going to "reform" it alright, as soon as it causes real pain to the profligate and reckless discretionary spending side of the budget.
The "reforms" will be:
1. increase retirement age
2. means-tested reduction schedule to benefits
3. reduce income threshold to trigger income tax on benefits (sneaky double hit that one)
4. plain old reduction in benefits
5. "marginaliized" group membership exceptions to reduction in benefits
6. Cancel the death benefit
7. Reduce or eliminate transfer of benefit to spouse upon death of primary SS earner for married couples
8. INFLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATION!
They will essentially cancel Social Security with death from a thousand cuts and claim they "saved" it.
2. means-tested reduction schedule to benefits
So wealth transfer from those who save to those who don't? Stop rewarding bad behavior.
I'm not advocating it I'm saying this is how they will eliminate social security, by distributing less and less to anyone who isnt living on dog food in their retirement.
That would be fought in courts as the system was defended originally based on it not being a wealth transfer.
Yet, it already is.
I fully expect McCarthy to cave at the last minute, but in the event that he actually doesn't, it's going to be awesome watching the fugazi libertarians of Readon tell the republicans they should just shut yp and give in to all of the democrsts' spending plans the way tthat he fugazis always do in the end.
Look for Block Insane Yomomna to direct his minions to put the "Barrycades" up in front of he Washington Monunent and all that same dumb theatrical bullshit once again if it happens
The "Greatest Generation" laughed in the face of Barry Goldwater's modest 1964 reforms to Social Security, so let's not let them off the hook for the present S.S. crisis.
(Not one Baby Boomer had the opportunity to vote for Goldwater.) Good luck getting the AARP, and any politicians, to tweak S.S. until it is on the brink of the cliff.
The Baby Boomers have put politicians in power for the past 50 years. They have as much blame as the Great Generation, and were some of the most vocal bitchers and moaners when Bush II broached the subject in 2004.
“The Greatest Generation” has some excuse for their beliefs and attitudes; Baby Boomers do not. US Baby Boomers, on average, are simply greedy and entitled, as are all subsequent US generations.
I'm happy to hold someone- such as the greatest generation- responsible for their beliefs. The evidence that Social Security had problems was clear in the 70s and if they harbored mythical beliefs that it would be fine, that's on them.
But it is ridiculous to suggest that the Boomers who were running things for the past decades don't hold nearly 100% of the blame for nothing being done about it.
It’s not political malpractice at all. It’s governance malpractice, but not political malpractice. Ironically, it would be political malpractice to proposed measures to address the problem.
Politicians know not to touch this subject lest they lose their jobs. Anyone proposing anything that remotely negatively impacts anyone in this country will be painted up as someone who wants to kill children and old people and will be voted out of office.
This subject is way too toxic politically. As such, the politically smart thing to do is kick the can as far down the road as possible.
Exactly.
The type of malpractice is a category error on de Rugy's part. Reforming SS and Medicare is politically dangenerous and a Quixotic gesture. Not reforming them is going to be a disaster of governance. I do not see a workable way out. The incentives for the political class are terrible.
Hopefully they will continue to keep heads in sand and then eventually the entire federal budget is mostly spent on entitlement and debt servicing and no money left for the totalstate anymore.
Nothing will change until it's forced to by reality. Until then, massive debt and unbacked spending will continue to occur.
This is why the most logical outcome is an increase in the retirement age. People will be grandfathered in, of course. People in their late fifties today will still retire on schedule, but if you are in your 40s, you'll have to work an extra year, and in your 30s, 2 or 3 years. It puts the pain off by decades, and sticks it to the kids who don't vote en masse anyways.
The most logical outcome to me: a slight increase in the SSA payroll tax from 7.65% to 9%, phased in over a 10-15 year period - employer side only; and, an increase in the penalty for claiming early (even less benefit at 62 than current 30% reduction for claiming early - something like a 40% reduction); and, an increase of FRA to age 70 to eliminate the delay bonus.
Do those, and your funding issue is solved for the time being.
The bigger question is when we privatize this. And it has to be.
"employer side only;"
It's hilarious that you think this is different from the individual paying the tax.
Consumers will pay higher prices, no doubt. The market competition will keep those increases to a lower level. You're missing the larger point, Overt. We both want this out of the hands of the government. The question is how can we bridge the time gap to achieve that. And FTR when I say time gap, I am talking 50-ish years; the transition timeline will be immense.
To me, that 'triad' (low tax increase phased over time, bigger early claim penalty, eliminate delay bonus) gets us very close.
My dilemma...what to replace SSA with. There are many different ideas. I personally like the idea of investment of 'SSA taxes portion of the future paycheck' in private broad-based index funds, US treasuries, Guaranteed Annuity mix as the vehicle for retirement savings.
The world is a very different place in 2023 than it was in 1935 when SSA was originally passed. Definitely needs an update, our world is much more financialized.
Leftist-think: If it doesn’t come directly out of my pocket, the theft never happened and there are no consequences to me…
Republicans' and Democrats' Refusal To Reform Social Security and Medicare Is Political Malpractice
This is gonna be a tough one to bowf sidez.
Yes, Republicans have... 'failed' to reform social security, but not for lack of trying. Facing a phalanx of bad press and Democratic opposition (but I repeat myself), yes, they've "failed" to reform it.
I mean, shit, here's President Biden's statement on social security reform:
That's a tacit admission that Republicans have tried "many times" to reform social security.
Facts are racist, hater…
Political malpractice ... BWAHahahahahaaaaa! Wait, I thought malpractice was failure to meet the standards of your profession that causes harm to someone that you owe a duty to. I challenge the writer to find ANY professional standards for politicians and ANY example of a politician successfully sued for causing harm to a constituent. Sorry, I'm going to have to wipe away my tears of laughter now ...
How does one reform a PONZI scheme exactly?
The good thing about other ponzi schemes is you can opt out.
End it. I will give up my first 20 years if you let me opt out of the next 20.
I will not let you opt out until you have paid for the rest of my retirement.
They put a gun to my head, and they are putting a gun to your head.
Somehow that is ‘equal treatment under the law’.
Good analogy. Do you suppose total financial collapse will be enough to convince our latest generation of leftists that just maybe their notions of how he world work ought to be questioned?
Boomers are the real parasitical class. Trying to live forever and putting it on their kid's credit card. I will cheer when the last boomer stumbles into a mass grave.
While you're holding the credit card bill?
Social Security insolvency and climate change catastrophe....two predictions that keep on keeping on and pop up every year.
The first is a fact politicians have no intention of addressing, the second a fiction used as the basis for trillions in spending meant to hasten the collapse guaranteed by the first.
Why does a supposedly libertarian organization continue to post this liberal claptrap?
Lot$ of rea$on$…
Fuck off you dishonest leftist cunt. Barack Obama talked about the need to lower health care costs then went and implemented the single largest driver in health care cost increases in a generation but you want to credit him as serious about the problem.
Funny how you don't touch entitlements while Democrats are busy escalating costs but now that you can both sides the issue it's fair game.
Instead of free health care I want arepas. Sarait agrees.
The [Na]tional 'So[zi]al'ist Security of the USA...
It's worked so much better than that outdated 'limited' idea of the founders. Heck today we have no manufacturing to speak of. The nation is literally bankrupt. Wealth disparity is like never before and dictation is off the charts.
Dumb*ss voters.
The ultimate problem is that we all want something for nothing -- it's human nature. But you'd think that such offers would make people suspect. Too often, it doesn't.
Since the MSM and politicians assure us that everything is all right, most want to believe them, and to stay on course. Aside from soaking the rich more, nothing will be done to painfully confront the situation.
At this point, I don't think it matters which party is in power. The voters are hooked on freebies that they either don't have to pay for, or pay too little for (SS).
I don't see this working out. More inflation is the least painful POLITICAL option, but will do major harm to Ameria. It's a way for government to largely repudiate the national debt.
Sadly, people will reflexively think that the resulting problems are caused by "corporate greed" (or some variation of that mantra).
The one thing the public will NOT grasp is that it's the VOTERS' greed -- being willing to believe we could get something for nothing -- that will cause the coming problems.
WE (well, America's overwhelming majority) caused it. Not our politicians, or the MSM, or greedy businessmen. We gullible fools did it to ourselves. With the notable exception of libertarians, of course!
Plan accordingly.
“But you’d think that such offers would make people suspect. Too often, it doesn’t.”
Wizard’s First Rule (paraphrased, too lazy to look up the exact quote):
“People are stupid. Most would rather believe a lie than the truth, either because they WISH it were true, or are afraid it might be.”
Working Online from home and earns more than $15k every month. I have received $17365 last month by doing online work from home. Its an easy and simple job to do from home and even a little child can do this online and makes money.Everybody can get this job.
Now and earns more dollars online by just………………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
I think a good solution would be to convince the younger generations that social security is unfair, through cartoons and short films. Show them that social security is just a bunch of rich old people taking their money, plus printing additional money which makes prices rise. This will make them vote for politicians who will end social security.
Only problem is, someone would need to make the short films.
I might try later in the day, but my mum would never let me upload it to the internet. Someone else would have to make one.
But, I'm sure there are some good libertarian filmmakers who would do a much better job than me.
"I think a good solution would be to convince the younger generations that social security is unfair, through cartoons and short films..."
You'll be opposed by the Teachers Unions, and they got the kids 7 hours a day.
The author has clearly never read Machiavelli nor Orwell. Political malpractice was the entire point of structuring these programs to fail, not an “unintended consequence .” The Democrats who sponsored and continue to oppose reforms for these programs were neither incompetent nor “simply misguided” but rather deliberately and malicious. “The object of power is power.”
Neither party is going to reform Social Security. Why? Because with all the stupid accusations and mudslinging that have already happened reforming Social Security is political suicide.
Both parties will point fingers at the other party when the SS collapse happens and blame the collapse on that party doing nothing when they themself did nothing too.
This is American politics, always has been that way, always will be that way. Both parties supporters will believe the lies and continue to blame the other party. No third party with a plan will even be listened too.
Look at Joe Biden's report on the Afghanistan withdrawal After saying it was not a disaster and an efficient and safe withdrawal, he now says the disaster he said didn’t happen is Trump’s fault! A perfect example of the obfuscating and lies, even including Orwell's "Doublethink" (Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality). Finger pointing is what are politicians are good at. It has been decades since we had a Truman type President that believes “The Buck Stops Here”.
Social Security was a FDR Democratic Ponzi scheme from day one to steal the workers money and very few to ever collect any benefit. And you are surprised it is going broke?
Life Expectancy for Social Security
If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65.
- https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
It is all your fault, you are living to long!
Further, anyone attending gov't schools in the late 20th century was taught that 'FDR was the 'generous man who began S/S!!!'
Hard for either party (not that the D's give it a lot of effort) to push back on gov't school indoctrination.
Did I miss a solution here?
Social security is the most racist, sexist program in America. By paying out the same payments to all, blacks and men get YEARS fewer payments than women, whites and Asians.
Men have shorter life expectancies than women. Same problem for blacks. Black men get the worst deal.
There should be no SS. But if forced retirement savings in an unavoidable government priority, contributions should go into a defined CONTRIBUTION earmarked account like an IRA. The retiree would get whatever they "invested" in their account, plus earnings.
Instead, we have the disaster of a defined BENEFIT SS plan which is INEVITABLY grossly underfunded. ALL governments promise future benefits that simply cannot be paid for by the contributions.
It's human nature to want something for nothing. Such politicians win most of the elections.