RE: Values: Fairness

[Jeremy Kidd <jeremy.kidd@mail.house.gov>]

     As someone involved with Social Security at the federal level,
it interests me a great deal to hear views from outside Washington,
D.C.  I have but a few things that I would like to add to the debate.

     First of all, I believe that fairness is a popular idea, but I
have not made up my mind whether this issue is currently about, or 
even should be about, fairness.  Recently, I went to a rally on 
Medicare on the West steps of the Capitol, and the comments were all
about saving the program for the elderly and the Baby Boom Generation.
Nowhere in the debate has generation X been mentioned.  I believe
that if you asked a sample of generation X'ers, the majority would 
say that they do not expect the Social Security program to be there 
for them.  I know that I don't, and I don't see anyone proposing 
to save the system for my generation, and quite frankly, I don't 
care too much.  I will just continue to pay my FICA taxes, and save 
for my own retirement.

     There are a couple of other issues I would like to see addressed,
as well.  First of all, no one wants to see the elderly in poverty, 
but what happens to family ties when the government tells children 
and grandchildren: "Don't worry about planning to take care of your 
parents, because we'll handle that."  Just a kernel for thought.

     Also, I would like to introduce one other point.  That is, that
when Social Security began, 65 was chosen as the starting age, 
because that was the basic life expectancy of the average American,
and if someone lived longer than that, they probably couldn't work,
or take care of themselves.  Now that people are living much longer
(on average, into their mid to late 70's), why is it such a terrible
idea to raise the eligibility age.  People are much healthier now
at 70 than they ever were at 65, when the Social Security Program 
was formed.  If we are determined to help the elderly in society,
who cannot help themselves, perhaps we should be realistic, and 
provide for them when they cannot provide any more, and not just 
make the arbitrary age limit 65.

     Again, just some food for thought.