Thursday, March 24, 2005

None dare call it welfare

Here’s Robert Samuelson in today’s WashPost:

In 1935 Americans 65 and older were 6 percent of the population. They're now 12 percent and by 2030 are projected to be 20 percent. Most Americans can now save for their own retirement, including the cost of health insurance. The Social Security debate ought to involve moral values and economic realities. How generous a "safety net" for the elderly can a decent society afford without overtaxing the young or harming the economy? How can changes be made without being too disruptive? Instead, the debate has degenerated into an obscure technical exercise focused on baffling accounting concepts (trust fund "solvency," "unfunded liabilities").

Despite what you've heard, the real issue is not Social Security's "solvency." It is the total cost to the government of baby boomers' retirement, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which covers much nursing home care). The real issue is preventing those costs from becoming economically oppressive and politically poisonous.
At David Brooks’ suggestion, I’ve ordered a copy of “The Coming Generational Storm.” Unless something is done before the senior voting bloc reaches critical mass, I’m afraid we’re going to be locked into a period of escalating taxes and generational conflict.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Even Jimmy Carter tried to reform Social Security in 1979. Nobody wanted to be bothered with since it would go bust so far in the future. THE FUTURE IS HERE!

The Boomers planned on Social Security being there for them. Cut them down and there will be hell to pay.

The Democrats STILL want to put off any reforms.