Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Social Security up for discussion.
Social Security up for discussion. – Cliff Brown
The November 22, 2006 issue of the Washington Post features an article about Social Security written by Lori Montgomery.It seems clear that President Bush is willing to, and pushing for, privatization of SS, whilst the Democrats oppose such a move "on the grounds that they would weaken Social Security overall." Instead they appear to propose raising taxes to curb the problem.
Mr Bush may seem willing to lift the existing cap on the limit paying Social Security from payroll taxes. This would raise the tax revenue and help with the impending doom for the program. However, this raises the questions as to whether this will be enough to solve the problem in the long run, or if it just delays the inevitable? And, is this fair?
Although there may be more bipartisan consideration for resolving the issue following the recent election, it seems like only fiscal fixes are being addressed. Areas of entitlement reform do not appear to be being addressed (with perhaps the exception of raising the retirement age). Surely these areas do need to be considered further.
With many people of my generation coming to the realization that SS may be defunct when they retire, and are therefore making alternative plans, it seems a little bizarre that many politicians are clinging on to a system that needs a bigger fix than that which will necessitate them being re-elected.If those that don't need the program don't pay into the program then, yes, revenues will fall, but so will expenditures. Is this such a sensitive area that politicians are not willing to consider it, only economists?
The November 22, 2006 issue of the Washington Post features an article about Social Security written by Lori Montgomery.It seems clear that President Bush is willing to, and pushing for, privatization of SS, whilst the Democrats oppose such a move "on the grounds that they would weaken Social Security overall." Instead they appear to propose raising taxes to curb the problem.
Mr Bush may seem willing to lift the existing cap on the limit paying Social Security from payroll taxes. This would raise the tax revenue and help with the impending doom for the program. However, this raises the questions as to whether this will be enough to solve the problem in the long run, or if it just delays the inevitable? And, is this fair?
Although there may be more bipartisan consideration for resolving the issue following the recent election, it seems like only fiscal fixes are being addressed. Areas of entitlement reform do not appear to be being addressed (with perhaps the exception of raising the retirement age). Surely these areas do need to be considered further.
With many people of my generation coming to the realization that SS may be defunct when they retire, and are therefore making alternative plans, it seems a little bizarre that many politicians are clinging on to a system that needs a bigger fix than that which will necessitate them being re-elected.If those that don't need the program don't pay into the program then, yes, revenues will fall, but so will expenditures. Is this such a sensitive area that politicians are not willing to consider it, only economists?
