RE: Values: Fairness

[Lisa Furia <lfuria@earthlink.net>]

Fairness is generally agreed to be an important component of this
discussion; however, every interest group defines 'fairness'
differently.

The previous commentor says:

"Generational fairness:  To be fair, the system would pay out the
same ratio of benefits versus lifetime contributions, adjusted for
inflation, to all generations."

In the current system, this would mean that many of today's
beneficiaries, who have clearly outlived their actual & inflation-adjusted
contributions, would have zero benefit left.  Instead, we should
consider ways to trade off the cost of providing benefits one cannot
outlive with the level and design of those benefits. If retirees
expect to have benefits one cannot outlive then they must also be
prepared to make concessions so their children and grandchildren
can pay for them without substantially reducing opportunities during
their pre- and working years.

The previous commentor also says that "Congress is already guilty
of changing the rules in the middle of the game."

This attitude which essentially requires the foundational premises
of SS to remain unchanged is untenable if we expect real vs.
lip-service reform.  Interest groups clinging to sacred cows will
not forward reform.  The previous commentor suggests changing the
structure of SS is "blatantly unfair ... (and) must be repealed as
part of Social Security reform" and that "reducing benefits based
on "means testing", and other provisions which would have participants
pay in under one set of rules, then receive (or be denied) benefits
under another, have no place in a fair system."

I believe trying to retrofit the current system without challenging
its fundamentals would be a doomed effort because it assumes what
is true today is equivalent with what was true at SS's inception.

It would be most productive if interest groups could agree that
defining values such as "fairness" must be done collaboratively,
with a "blue-sky" approach (everything is on the table), and, then
devising an entirely new program (which, may resemble the current
program) that truly satisfies those values.

Lisa