RE: Social Security Roundtable

["Michael L. Coburn" <michael.l.coburn@gte.net>]

Positions:

Contributor: PANELIST: Gerry Shea
Gerry Shea's response to Bob Rosenblatt's opening question:
        Some might question whether reform steps should be taken now.
We believe that this Congress has the responsibility to act soon for two
important reasons.  First, many  americans doubt whether Social Security
will be there for them, and they need to be assured that it will.
Second, the Social Security actuaries are projecting a shortfall in
several decades time, and the sooner we act the more modest the steps
needed to achieve solvency will be.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Contributor: PANELIST: John Rother
Now - the next two months - is the time for hearings and comparative
analysis of the proposals put forward to date. Since it seems each side
has moved somewhat toward the other, now is also the time for ideas
about how to find a workable middle ground  that would let each party
take some political credit for a solution.

This problem is too important to let "the perfect become the enemy of
the good" on Social Security.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Contributor: PANELIST: Ann Combs
What steps should Congress take to deal with Social Security's future?
Theoretically, Congress should follow its normal process -- beginning
now!  Members should introduce legislation, actual statutory language
that lays out a detailed plan addressing all the tough issues, not just
spin-doctored bullet points designed to appeal to the public.  There
should be committee hearings that focus on the specific proposals. The
committees should take up a bill, make whatever changes it feels are
appropriate, and vote on it.  If approved, the bills would go to the
full House and Senate for debate.  Ultimately, the House and Senate,
Democrats and Republicans, should come to some agreement and send a
consensus bill to the President, who should sign it. The public would be
brought into this debate through members of Congress' attempts to
educate and poll their constituents, through the media, and through the
efforts of various interest groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributor: INDIVIDUAL: Michael Coburn
The steps taken to deal with Social Securities future cannot be taken by
Congress through its "normal process".  That process has created the
crap we have and there is no hope that it will create anything more than
a worse situation.  The correct process is to place the debate and the
discussion before the actual people in this country and insure that ALL
proposals are presented.  At present we have the usual political
wrangling and "how can I associate my name with some patched up piece of
pork called Social Security reform?".

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

There are MANY solutions to this problem.  Some are better than others,
and some are no solution at all.  My own position is that any solution
which involves the concept of saving or investing as administered, ore
encouraged, or compelled, or coerced by the Federal Government is
ineffective as well as being morally wrong.  The proper solution is to
alter Social Security such that it actually provides for the infirm that
are in need with those who are elderly (infirmity due to age) receiving
special and extended consideration.  It seems that any other mechanism
is simply too replete with score keeping and insistence on specific
values and other religious agendas.  It seems to me that if a person is
without means and in need due to infirmity then the person should
receive assistance so long as that individual has contributed to the
national insurance policy called Social Security.  The benefits need to
be *VERY FORGIVINGLY* means tested based on assets (not income),  and
the revenue needs to be raised from something other than a tax on low
wage earners.

Proposals which remove the cap on taxable SS wages are a step in the
right direction. These proposals do not go far enough in my opinion, but
they are reasonably progressive.  The real problem is the funding side
and what to do with the excess revenue now and the future shortfall.  If
we simply use the excess FICA revenue to decrease income taxes by
loaning the excess to government then we are simply giving the non wage
earners yet another tax break at the expense of the workers.  If we
"invest" the excess then we are driving the stock market to new highs
and, again, simply rewarding the wealthy at the expense of the wage
earners.  The proper solution, of course, is a massive reduction (if not
an elimination) of the FICA tax --  the excess needs to be refunded to
those who would have paid it so that they can invest as they see fit.
This reduction in tax should be coupled with a phased in means testing
system which ignores contribution and focuses on actual needs.  The
government has NO right to tell the citizens what to invest in or how to
invest, and the productive working people must decide to what extent the
inform will be supported.

It is my opinion that consumption should be taxed to fund any such
social endeavor as SS and that taxing income is totally inappropriate.
However, I am reaching MUCH too far with this and such a solution is not
currently politically feasible because it has not been presented to the
people of the nation with enough vigor or actual debate to have a chance
of entering the collective consciousness.  The first step is the removal
of the cap and a refund of the excess to those who should actually have
it.  The impending need for means testing will then become quite obvious
and the program will, over time, become what it should be:  A social
safety net to insure a reasonable life style to those who are infirm.

Rich folks will still have a much better life style then poor folks
regardless of infirmity.