• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

By J.D. WhitlockSummer Bruin Columnist

A recent poll taken by Gen X group Third Millennium found that almost twice as many 18- to 34-year-olds believe in UFOs as believe in the long-term existence of Social Security.

Estimates of the demise of Social Security range from the year 2010 to 2030, with the 2030 guess counting on the money in the Social Security Trust Fund to delay the crash. The only problem is, there's no money in the Social Security Trust Fund because Congress continues to spend it all.

Either way, the difference is of little relevance for the average Bruin - Social Security will be toast by the time we retire if the status quo continues to reign.

In order to finance the boomers' retirement at a level equal to today's benefits in the year 2010, we will need to shell out about a quarter of our income in payroll taxes. Why? Because in 1950 there were 16 workers paying taxes for every retiree collecting benefits. Today, three workers support each Social Security recipient. In 30 years, the figure will be two to one.

In addition, longer life expectancies and automatic cost of living adjustments mean that the average Social Security recipient today collected all that he/she paid into the system (with interest) in the first few years of retirement. Everything after that has been hoisted onto the backs of a younger generation.

As we are all quite aware by now, our generation is the first ever in this country to face a lower average standard of living than our parents. We certainly do not need to add to this burden by carrying the cross of a Social Security disaster.

We might expect that our pal Newt Gingrich, Mr. Fiscal responsibility himself (except when it comes to military procurement contracts in his own district), would be hot on this issue. After all, part of the Contract with America is about guaranteeing "our children" the opportunity to have a realistic shot at the American Dream, right?

Maybe not. Gingrich recently called the problem with Social Security, "an abstraction that is 25 years from now."

The Democrats aren't much better. Their traditional "offend no one" strategy while talking about constructive change hasn't failed them yet (or they haven't noticed yet). Common sense proposals on Social Security from moderate, bipartisan groups are routinely trashed by the White House.

Why this hypocrisy? Go figure. The AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) is the country's largest, and arguably most powerful, lobbying group. Suggesting that Social Security needs an overhaul is the political equivalent of jumping on a live hand grenade on Capitol Hill today. Older Americans vote; we don't.

This situation can be handled a few different ways:

1) We can sit on our collective backsides now and in 20 years sacrifice our lifeblood to pay obscene payroll taxes.

2) We can sit on our collective backsides now, and in 20 years vote the payroll taxes down and kick our parents out into the street.

3) We can demand that a realistic plan be developed and put into place NOW that will cushion the blow to future beneficiaries and create a sustainable cash flow for Social Security.

The reason timing is so critical is that the burden needs to be shared with the boomers, and that means something needs to be done soon, before they start retiring.

Let's take a quick poll. Survey says ... door No. 3. What are some of the options?

Test Social Security benefits. We hand out billions of dollars to the well-to-do elderly while slashing social programs for children. What kind of society operates like this?

Benefits should be ratcheted down incrementally in proportion to income over a set amount, say 10 percent of benefits lost for every $10,000 of annual income over $40,000. This is an idea that is gaining acceptance for all federal entitlement programs as budget balancing has (finally) entered the realm of mainstream political discourse.

Raise the retirement age. The retirement age is the same today as it was when life expectancy was 10 years lower than it is today. Even a modest increase, to 67, would mean huge savings.

The IRA option. One proposal suggests that workers pay about half of what they do now into the system to provide for low income elderly, and the other half into mandatory IRA-like accounts. This would keep the government's hands out of the cookie jar, and guarantee that workers today would see at least some of their money when they retire.

In closing, a few words of magnificent wisdom from former Sen. Paul Tsongas, co-founder of the Concord Coalition, a grass-roots bipartisan organization dedicated to eliminating budget deficits:

"As someone who goes to campus and gives speeches, I think the retirees would be well-advised to spend a little more time with the young and get a sense of how strong their feelings are about this."

"It's not a choice between an adjustment today and keeping things as they are forever. It's really a choice between an adjustment today or waiting for the cataclysm to happen, at which point the young will rebel and you will see politicians running on an anti-retiree platform."

Gosh Paul, couldn't have said it better myself. Listening, Newt & Bill? Listening, AARP?

Listening, fellow Bruins?

Whitlock is a graduate student in the School of Public Health. His column appears monthly. You can e-mail him at 71055.3136@compuserve.com

The struggle for balance

If Social Security is to survive, the post-baby boomer generation must initiate fiscal policy changes.