17 March 2005

Social Security Reform Now, RIGHT NOW

In 1935 when Social Security was foisted on an unsuspecting and depression fatigued American public, Radio was the new mass communication medium. Much as we view the internet today. I am quite certain Will Rogers would have been a blogger.

Think about that.

A used, running, good condition Model T Ford could be had for $25.00 or less.

Lindbergh had crossed the Atlantic only eight years prior. Today we have privately built spacecraft going to space. Space tourism is only a few years off, we have phones that we can carry in a shirt pocket and need no wires. In a large majority of American homes we have several televisions, personal computers. We even have computers that we can carry with us.

FDR has often been hailed by democrats as the great experimenter. Oddly though, the only thing he seemed interested in experimenting with were thinly disguised socialist programs. So now, 70 years later, we are still experimenting with a socialistic Ponzi scheme, and surprise, surprise, it still doesn't work. Imagine that; the other great experiment in socialism, the Soviet Union, has long since been relegated to the ash heap of history, but partisan hack democrats in this country still insist that we change no parameters in this so called "experiment". The obstructionists in the Democratic party insist on continuing to invoke the memory of FDR; so, they owe us an explanation for this. Like, what is their hypothesis, and when can we expect to see a favorable result?

Depending on what figures you look to, Social Security yields less than a two percent return. Unless you are an exempted government employee, you must participate under threat of force. Failure to comply will result in jail time. Some deal, sounds like a raw deal to me.

The always brilliant Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, has a couple of great articles this topic. Read both of them as they are very informative. In the first, Williams shows the outright deceit of the Social Security scheme.

"...Here's what a 1936 government Social Security pamphlet said... beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year...That is the most you will ever pay."... Had Congress lived up to those promises, where $3,000 was the maximum earnings subject to Social Security tax, controlling for inflation, today's $50,000-a-year wage earner would pay about $700 in Social Security taxes, as opposed to the more than $3,000 that he pays today..."

In the second piece from Williams, he points up two Supreme Court decisions that should be very interesting to those seniors who continue to buy into the nonsense that Social Security is a right or even a contractual obligation the government owes to them.

"...Another lie was that there was a Social Security account with your money in it to which you had rights. There's no such account, plus, according to two U.S. Supreme Court cases -- Helvering v. Davis (1937) and Fleming v. Nestor (1960) -- you have no legal right, in the sense of a contract, to Social Security payments..."

Social Security is a fraud, and we should be allowed to opt out of it completely. It is immoral to continue with this farce when it has been demonstrated time and again to be nothing more than an outdated, failed socialist scheme. Democrats always demagogue Republican initiatives with the focus-group-tested-phrase "risky-scheme". By my reckoning, counting on Social Security to provide for you or your family in retirement is the "risky-scheme". Failing to fix it now by spending $2 trillion, and instead waiting until it becomes a $10 trillion problem sounds like a "risky-scheme".

A 2005 model Ford 500, arguably an almost direct descendant of say a 1935 Ford sedan, is a technological marvel compared to the Ford sedan of 1935. Todays model 500 (itself a nostalgic revival of a 1960's Ford offering) offers a 203 hp 3.0 DOHC V-6 with electronic fuel injection, disc brakes, available all wheel drive and shares its chassis platform with Volvo. I used the Ford for comparison purposes because it illustrates how far along the world has moved since 1935. Heck; in todays automotive market a 203 hp V-6 is nothing special. The new Ford 500 has safety features like airbags and anti-lock brakes that were the stuff of sci-fi fantasy in the 1930's. Not even transport category airliners of the 1930's had these features. But were you to cite these specifications in 1935, (as standard equipment no less!) you would have caused quite a sensation.

Social Security might have sounded like a good idea to someone who had possibly stood in bread lines only a few years before, or seen a fortune evaporate in the crash of 1929, but it just does not make sense today when we have seen better examples, in say Chile or even our own Galveston, TX.

We can do better. President Bushes proposal will ensure a much better return, allowing the accumulation of real wealth, as well as being able to pass this along to your family, a feature sorely lacking in the current system. You wouldn't be satisfied with a 1935 Ford sedan, other than as a curiosity or perhaps a weekend cruiser, but not for a daily driver. Why in the world would you accept such a thing for your retirement?

You wouldn't. Not for a minute. -SpinDaddy

Update 19MAR05 1406hrs: This post was linked to by Dummocrats.com and started quite a conversation in the comments section over there. I will update with some responses of my own in a bit, I've got other chores to get to right now but, I'll be back -Spin