| OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2005 Securing Social Security Representative Rob Bishop, Utah's First Congressional District The discussion of Social Security today is not just about a social security program. It's about retirement securi-ty for all of us, but especially for our kids. Social Security has been a solid program for over 60 years. It was there for my parents. I'm convinced it will be there for me. But the demographics are against it being there for my kids unless we're willing to take steps to protect the system for future generations. I know Americans of good will care enough to give our kids a stake in a secure Social Security future. It's Our Money and It's Not Secure The first thing to remember is that it is our money. We earned it. It came from our paychecks. The government shouldn't just take it, but should ensure that it will be of some use to us in the future so that retirement security will be there for our us and our kids. The government can ensure this by guaranteeing our right to make safe, prudent choices so our money is secure and maximized. There are voices trying to minimize the problem. They say there is no present crisis, but remember that the Titanic didn't sink until it actually hit an iceberg. Wouldn't it have been wiser to change course? The second thing to remember in this debate is that there are irrefutable problems facing the Social Security program right now or in the very near future. In three years, we will begin to see the first baby boomers retire. Already each year there are fewer workers to support more retirees. The retiring of baby boomers will only exacerbate this problem. Social Security cannot afford to pay all of the benefits it has promised. Beginning in 2017, it will run cash deficits that get bigger every year. Though the fixes to the overall program may be matters for disagreement, discussion and debate, the imminent financial and demographic problems facing Social Security are not. They are undeniable facts. Social Security is not actually original to the United States. Otto von Bismarck in 19th century Prussia designed the system. In Prussia, it was a short-term success. The system there, just like the system here, had two inherent problems. First, it is a captive of demographics. Since it's a pay-as-you-go plan, it's a great arrangement if there are lots of kids who will become workers. In the 1950s there were 16 workers paying into the system to support every Social Security recipient. Today there are three workers for every recipient. Social Security Cash Flows, 2005-2079 (billions of real dollars, 2005 Trustees Report) When our kids retire, it will be down to a two-to-one ratio. I have a friend with ten kids. One day at the supermarket, the checker was giving him a hard time about having so many kids. She claimed she was paying for his children's education. My friend just smiled and said, "Be happy. My kids will be paying for your Social Security." The bottom line is there are not enough kids to fund Social Security in the future as it is now established. It's also a good system if people don't live long. When Social Security was first established in the U.S., the retirement age was pegged at 65. Of course, back then the average life expectancy was 60, or 57 if you were a working man. If the average person passed away before taking out any Social Security retirement benefits, there was very little financial strain on the system. Today, however, people live longer, which is great for us individually, but not great for a system designed for the America of 70 years ago. 16 Waters paying tor evenf 1 Beneficiary Ml 3.3 worlers paying for every 1 Benefldary Only Z Workers paying lor every 1 Beneficiary 83 |
