Today’s Washington Post has a lead editorial on Social Security that seems to be a compendium of all the points I’ve been making for two years (along with others):
The Bush administration's declining fortunes have buried the prospect of Social Security reform. Congress was never keen: Democrats united against personal accounts; Republicans were divided as to what sort they wanted. But although President Bush's critics may celebrate this defeat, delaying Social Security's reform makes the eventual change only harder. Both sides should acknowledge their contributions to this debacle -- and reengage.Well, that’s just great. The time to show support for reform was at least a year ago when President Bush declared that he would “spend” his political capital to ensure the solvency of the program. Now with millions of baby boomers within grasp of their “free” money, we’re strapped in:
Starting 12 years from now, pensions will cost the government more than it collects from the payroll tax that's supposed to finance them. This shortfall, coupled with the much larger drain from Medicare, threatens to consume resources needed for other government functions. It is unsustainable.Fat lot of good your call for reform does us now, WashPost. A useless waste of ink and electrons, too little too late.
2 comments:
They would never support anything Bush proposes anyway. The WAPo's idea of change is to raise taxes on everyone to increase the SS benefits.
President Bush was pushing for private accounts. By his own admissions this was not going to solve Social Security solvency issues. Sen. Charles Grassley(R), Senate Finance Committee chairman, also admits that private accounts are not the answer.
"Personal accounts don't solve that problem," Grassley said. "You still have the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund."
Personal accounts are just a distraction that only helped to divide Congress and waste time that could be used to actually make a difference.
Post a Comment