Spring Break
Social Security's future: Brighter than you think
Immenent retirement of the baby boomers brings challenges, but the 70-year-old program will endure
Christopher Girard
Issue date: 10/15/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
The phrase has long since entered the political lexicon, but it was former House Speaker and Massachusetts Representative Tip O'Neill who first christened Social Security the "third rail of American politics."
The reasoning behind his snide dubbing is twofold: the high political mortality rate of those who suggest change to the program, and avoidance of the issue by even Washington's most forthcoming public officials.
During the Oct. 9 GOP debate, presidential candidate Fred Thompson threw conventional wisdom to the wind and grabbed the rail. Hard.
Thompson called Social Security's current trajectory "unsustainable" and proposed reducing the benefits of recipients to prevent the program from going bankrupt.
"For future retirees, instead of having nothing, which is what they're headed for under the current situation that's unsustainable, they would have protection," Thompson said in the debate.
It may sound technocratic, but Thompson is right. Given the imminent retirement of the Baby Boom generation, Social Security's current benefits structure-whether interim or indefinite-will have to be cut. Either that, taxes must be raised.
Social Security can be fixed by adjusting program benefits and tax rates to avoid a funding crisis while not comprimising the guarantee of payouts.
Thompson's plan would re-index benefits in reference to cost-of-living rather than wages, the standard by which payments are presently calculated. The cost-of-living index grows at a slower rate than wages, so this switch would result in diminished benefits and smaller governmental costs. So far, his plan is the most detailed and viable Social Security policy of all the presidential candidates.
Hopefully, Thompson's bravado will trigger similar responses from other candidates. But given the risk involved with discussing the issue, expedient adjustment of Social Security is still uncertain.
"Nobody's even talking about it, because there are no good options," Rep. Tom Davis (R-Virginia) said in October to The Baltimore Sun. "You are either cutting somebody's benefits or raising somebody's taxes."
The reasoning behind his snide dubbing is twofold: the high political mortality rate of those who suggest change to the program, and avoidance of the issue by even Washington's most forthcoming public officials.
During the Oct. 9 GOP debate, presidential candidate Fred Thompson threw conventional wisdom to the wind and grabbed the rail. Hard.
Thompson called Social Security's current trajectory "unsustainable" and proposed reducing the benefits of recipients to prevent the program from going bankrupt.
"For future retirees, instead of having nothing, which is what they're headed for under the current situation that's unsustainable, they would have protection," Thompson said in the debate.
It may sound technocratic, but Thompson is right. Given the imminent retirement of the Baby Boom generation, Social Security's current benefits structure-whether interim or indefinite-will have to be cut. Either that, taxes must be raised.
Social Security can be fixed by adjusting program benefits and tax rates to avoid a funding crisis while not comprimising the guarantee of payouts.
Thompson's plan would re-index benefits in reference to cost-of-living rather than wages, the standard by which payments are presently calculated. The cost-of-living index grows at a slower rate than wages, so this switch would result in diminished benefits and smaller governmental costs. So far, his plan is the most detailed and viable Social Security policy of all the presidential candidates.
Hopefully, Thompson's bravado will trigger similar responses from other candidates. But given the risk involved with discussing the issue, expedient adjustment of Social Security is still uncertain.
"Nobody's even talking about it, because there are no good options," Rep. Tom Davis (R-Virginia) said in October to The Baltimore Sun. "You are either cutting somebody's benefits or raising somebody's taxes."
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Alan Srout
posted 11/16/07 @ 1:30 PM EST
They Said It: Thompson Social Security Plan Applauded as 'Courageous,' 'Honest,' and 'Substantive'
Courage & Honesty
Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson's plan to save Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday afternoon in a Washington, D. (Continued…)
Post a Comment