What will it take to make people pay attention?

In the mid-eighties, there was a satiric current-events show on HBO called "Not Necessarily the News." The format was like an extended "Weekend Update" on Saturday Night Live with "news" stories presented in a humorous form. A skit that I always remember is one where a correspondent is talking about the rising budget deficit under Reagan. But, instead of standing in front of the Treasury Building or the White House, he was giving this particular report from a woman's gym. As he talked about unprecedented federal borrowing, beautiful women could be seen in the background doing exercises. Finally, the female anchorwoman back at the station indignantly asked "Why are you giving your report from a gym?" The reporter got wide-eyed and yelled: "It's the only way to make people pay attention! We are swimming in a sea of debt! Something must be done!"

I think about that skit whenever the issue of Social Security is raised, as in this article "Is Social Security the most destructive program ever devised?" It's really all the same arguments about the federal pyramid scheme – but will anyone listen? Not a chance. That program is going to suffocate taxpayers in about ten years when payments start to outstrip revenues and billions of Treasury bonds will have to be redeemed. But no politician in Washington has the nuts to face the looming reality. So on we go.

As I've noted here before, I'm not depending on Social Security. Right now, I'm dumping a large portion of my salary into my 401(k) plan and whenever I calculate retirement funds, I always leave out Social Security. I would have opted out of the program a long time ago if I could have. But here's my new fear: in the next 20 years, as the strain of the Ponzi trick plays out, I'm afraid that politicians will start eyeballing the huge amount of money in 401(k) plans and look to seize tax them also.

Why shouldn't I believe it will happen? The other day, on NPR (natch) I heard a woman comment about a proposal to impose a "millionaire's tax." She said [paraphrasing]: "Why shouldn't we ask more of people who have done well and will be least effected in their lifestyle by this tax?" Why? Because it's their money. What right does the government have to take away money just because somebody's got more than somebody else? The kindest word I can apply to that philosophy is "class warfare," but "communism" sounds just as apt.

I want to retire in 2030. And I should be able to, as long as the government keeps their meat hooks off my 401k. But if they should start to take my money, I always have this dream scenario where I'm testifying before Congress and I say: "If I had known you were going to take the money I had saved all these years, I would have bought a new car every two years. I would have vacationed in Florida hotels, instead of camping at KOAs. I would have eaten filet mignon at every meal. In short, I would have lived the life of the grasshopper, because you're now punishing the ant that saved up for winter."

It's impossible to escape the demographics of the eventual crisis in Social Security. I've given up: now I just want to hold onto my own savings.