RE: What are the values you would have underlie Social Security

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

  I guess I should introduce myself.  I grew up in a very conservative
culture, but also in a very poor family.  Many are amazed, after seeing
the financial situation of my family, that I would be very politically
conservative.  Through my experiences, including a period of two years,
living in Brazil, and my education as an economist, I have learned that
liberal and even more socialist programs do nothing to improve the economy
of our country, and even less to help the individual citizens that they
proport to serve.

   My current job as a Legislative Assistant for one of our Congressmen
gives me, I believe, a different perspective on the Social Security
Crisis, as well as the role of government in Social Reform, in
general.  The government is not smarter than the average American.
It is so convoluted that it is rare that any workable solution
arises from the 'hallowed halls' of Congress.  That is not to say
that the individuals that represent us are not well- intentioned
men and women, but the nature of the beast is such that it precludes
efficient solutions.  Therefore, I am opposed to the massive amounts
of government control that most liberals espouse, especially in
the areas of Social Insurance and Health Care.  In spite of what
advocates say, those countries with higher levels of government
sponsorship of health care and other social programs, their citizens
are not better off.  Health care in the U.S.  is the best in the
world for a reason, because the government has not managed to
control it, yet.  The standard of living in the U.S. is the highest
in the world for the very same reason.  I accept that government
should help those who cannot care for themselves, but when there
is personal ability to care for oneself, or familial ability to
provide, I believe government should stay out, and leave more tax
dollars to the individuals and families.  That is how an economy
grows.

   Specifically, regarding the nine points of Social Security:

   1. The program is nearly universal in coverage - 96 out of 
      100 jobs are covered. 

   I would just ask how good pension benefits (which have much greater
potential for retirement, because of compounding interest) would be, if
government did not require all employers to pay over 7% of a worker's 
paycheck to the government in taxes?

   2. Benefits are paid as an earned right, with eligibility 
      for benefits and the benefit rate based on an individual's 
      past earnings. 

   3. Benefits are wage-related. 

   I have to chuckle whenever these points are made, because I honestly
do not expect the Social Security Program to be solvent when I
retire, so how can it be said that my benefits are an earned right,
and are based on my wages, when all my payroll tax deductions pay
for my grandparents' retirement.  I have no problem doing so, as
I love my grandparents, but I do not think that seniors' groups
will allow the program to be changed enough for Social Security to
survive to my retirement, so I do not expect to receive anything.
Again, I accept this, because I must, but let's be honest with
ourselves, and with the American public.

   4. The system is contributory and self-financed, with contributions 
      from wages specifically ear-marked for Social Security. 

   Theoretically, true.  In practice, however, we know that the
government bonds that have been sold to the Trust Fund have risk,
just as any other investment, albeit a much smaller risk.  There
is no guarantee that any Trust Fund monies will ever be used for
Social Security, as shown by the Supreme Court ruling that there
is no 'right' to benefits.  The government could decide tomorrow
that there would be no more Social Security, and all that money
would go to wherever Congress and the President wanted it to go.

   5. The benefit formula is redistributive, paying lower-income 
      workers a higher percentage of their pre-retirement earnings 
      than higher income workers. 

   This I agree is true, but I disagree with the assumption that this is a 
correct principle on which to base a social system.

   6. Benefits are not means-tested. 

   I believe that if you pay into a system, you should be able to
get back from that system.  I disagree that a certain part of
society should be required to support another part, which would be
the result of making the rich pay into the system, and have
effectively no way to achieve a return on that payment.

   7. Initial benefits are wage-indexed, reflecting improvements 
      in productivity and thus in the general standard of living. 

   8. Once they begin, Social Security benefits are inflation 
      protected, with annual cost of living adjustments tied to 
      the Consumer Price Index. 

   From an economic standpoint, the CPI has never been, and was
never intended as an accurage measure of standard of living.  I
cannot draw the graphs in this format, but the CPI increases rather
than maintains satisfaction, any time a change in prices occurs.
In short, it always overestimates inflation.

   9. Participation in Social Security is compulsory. 

   I echo the sentiment of many in this forum who have stated that
compulsion should be anathema to any and all Americans.  The only
time the government should have power to use compulsion is when an
individual is infringing on the rights of another individual, or
putting at risk the safety of the entire nation.

   Thanks to one and all, even those with whom I disagree, for a good debate!