The “safety net” has turned into casino chips

Writing in the WashPost, 59-year-old Robert Samuelson urges America to “Cut My Benefits”:

Give Bush credit for broaching, however indirectly, these sensitive issues. Criticize the Democrats for their limp "how dare you" response. But recognize that Bush's chosen vehicle for overhauling Social Security -- "personal" investment accounts -- distracts from what ought to be the central question: How much should younger and poorer taxpayers be forced to pay for older and richer beneficiaries?

People talk about potential benefit cuts as if they would be war crimes. The unspeakable truth -- unspeakable because hardly anyone speaks it -- is that benefit cuts are inevitable, because the baby boom's retirement costs will force them. The combined spending of Social Security and Medicare, according to government projections, would require at least a 30 percent tax increase by 2030. "Personal accounts" don't come close to closing the gap. Sooner or later, chances are there will be a political backlash or a budget crisis. The wiser policy is not to wait; it is to pare benefits now.

President Bush and the Democrats are playing a game of “chicken.” Dubya doesn’t want to admit that there must be benefit cuts for younger workers as a trade-off for personal accounts. The Democrats don’t want to acknowlege there’s a problem at all. But if nothing is done, the issue of benefit cuts will be taken out of the hands of the politicians since – by law – benefits will be automatically slashed by 30% around 2042. Why can’t the politicians in Washington act like adults – just once – and accept meaningful reform instead of just kicking the can down the road once again? It’s depressing.