Social Security?

How many of us 20-somethings are counting on Social Security to give us any type of financial security in our retirement? Up until Wednesday's State of the Union speech it seemed dubious that any politicians would actually stick their necks out in order to fundamentally alter the program so that it becomes sustainable. While President Bush is eager to spend his political capital on selling this reform (he no longer needs to concern himself with re-election), it looks like there still aren't any (or at least not many) in the Congress who are willing to take a big political risk for the long-term good of the country.

Republicans and Democrats alike are running scared from this "third rail of American politics." Why? Easy, who votes? Senior citizens do. What group has high-powered, well-paid lobbyists constantly bombarding Capitol Hill with their message? Seniors.

Ever heard of the AARP?

According to their website www.aarp.com, AARP (formerly The American Association of Retired Persons) boasts over 35 million members in all 50 states and over 40,000 members who live overseas. This mega-block of voting power has a $600 million annual budget, a 160,000 strong army of volunteers, a National Legislative council, and a Public Policy Institute that coordinate issue advocacy at local, state, national, and even international levels.

Senior citizens are understandably concerned about potential benefit cuts, and to their credit, the AARP's CEO William Novelli has made public statements declaring that "Social Security needs to be strengthened for our children and grandchildren." Nobody is arguing that seniors are out to short-change future generations.

Unfortunately, the group shows a true reluctance to fundamentally altering the current system. In an article titled "Don't Mess With Success," AARP's Merrill Goozner calls Social Security the "most successful government program in the nation's history." She goes on to argue that no crisis is imminent and that moderate changes will largely take care of Social Security's long-term solvency.

Let's leave Social Security alone for everyone who is old enough to be counting on it. Fine. If you are in your 50s or older, you took part in a society that made a contract with you that included the safety net of social security. You deserve not only our respect and gratitude but our support in your retirement. I will gladly continue investing all of my FICA tax into the system's current beneficiaries simply because it is the right thing to do.

For the rest of us, let's not hold our breath and hope that somehow this safety net will be there for us without either drastic cuts or higher taxes. The math just doesn't work.

Maybe that's not such a bad thing though. Just because Social Security may have been the nation's "most successful government program" doesn't mean that it will continue to be the best thing for our country.

Hasn't anyone wondered why with all of our relative prosperity the national savings rate is at an all-time low, as in as low as levels during the Great Depression? Is an average savings rate of 0.8% of disposable income (Business Week, January 17 '05) enough to sustain most families in retirement, especially in light of the piles of consumer debt, increasing lifespans and inflation?

The country has been lulled into a completely false sense of security as far as retirement goes. Our grandparents are doing ok, so we assume we will too. If Generations X,Y, and Z really believe that we will most likely not have the same kind of livable safety net that today's seniors have, then what on earth are we thinking? Our grandparents as a group didn't pile up billions of dollars of consumer debt and forego saving up for the future and they were pretty sure that social security would give them a decent degree of assistance in retirement. Why are we piling up credit card and automobile debts that have zero value as assets and that will pose a serious drain on future earnings? Acceptance is the first step in overcoming blatant consumerism. Once we accept the fact that WE are responsible to save for our retirement and for the well-being of our children and grandchildren, we will all be a lot better off.

Frankly, I'd rather vote someone into Congress who has the courage to tell me that my retirement entitlement is something I'm neither truly entitled to nor should I expect it to provide enough income to sustain a particularly comfortable lifestyle in my old age, than someone who is willing to plunge the nation into bankruptcy and saddle the entire economy with a tax burden far too heavy for it to perform at or near peak efficiency.

Congress, you want social security? You want the society to be secure? Then stop throwing pork and special favors down from on high, and come up with a balanced, growth-oriented budget that accounts for the inherent insecurity of the world and sets aside surplus funds in the event that we should suffer another national hardship with long-term economic disruptions.

That would make me feel secure. Heck, it would even make me feel more secure about the future of my two small children who will someday live in a country that has either squandered their inheritance through a complete lack of fiscal discipline, or that has pulled the reins on runaway spending, prioritized and balanced a budget, and set aside funds to sustain America through future crises.

Can it happen? Can people look out not for just "their own interests, but also to the interests of others"? As a student of recent history, I'm doubtful. As a husband, father, patriot, and optimist; I can't help but believe that our better nature will ultimately win and that we'll put our children first.