"Let's step back a bit from the details and look at the big picture on
Social Security plans. President Clinton wants to use 62% of anticipated future surpluses, or $2.8 trillion over 15 years, to pay down the national debt. At the same time, he gives the Social Securitty trust fund a promissory note for the 2.8 trillion, which extends its life about 20 years. This is ok under budget rules."
One question is *why* is it okay under the budget rules?
My answer -- basically because Congressional members don't have (and never have had) the fiscal courage to do otherwise. Same goes for the elected officials in the Executive.
"But what if the surplus doens;t materialize. A future Congress will have to make good the promise with general tax revenues. Same for the Republican plan by Reps. Bill Archer and Clay Shaw. They want to reserve $1.8 trillion over 10 years for the trust fund. This too is a promissory note and in efect a pledge of future tax revenues if needed."
See above plus the "general revenue" is not running at a surplus and might not. So...they couldn't "make good" with something which doesn't exist.
"For the panel and the public: is it fair to promise these additional future revenues to a program for retirees, when there is a high rate of poverty and health problems among children, and millions of Americans don't have health coverage?"
Ummmm...not sure there is a correlation. I suspect this is more of a matter of what constitutes the "social contract", i.e. what do we collectively do for each other.
An example -- those who, in my opinion, advocate partially or completely privatizing SS also, in general, are opposed to raising the minimum wage, favor corporate subsidies, and don't understand the difference between capitalism and the "free market" (these economic concepts to my understanding are *not* the same).
Their life philosophy (perspective on the "social contract") tends to drift towards an economic dog-eat-dog scenario.
"Are the President and the Republicans equally guilty of ducking hard choices about Social Security, and simply betting on surpluses, the way a person might anticipate winning the lottery."
Is this any surprise when the stock market is in reality nothing more than a federally sanctioned lotto?
This is a philosophy of the two-headed, one "party".
"Let's hear your thoughts."
You just did (and some may be regretting it [smile]).
