Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.
52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.
I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.
6. What specific measures would you recommend to protect Social Security for coming generations?
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Congress
Comments (21)
Privatize it.Inste... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Dave W | November 2, 2007 10:19 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Privatize it.
Instead of making people pay into the government, allow employees to direct an increasing portion of their "contributions" to either their 401k plan, or another account that can gain interest.
The reason this idea failed is because this would essentially bring less money to washington. No one in washington would dare stand on the senate or house floors and actually want to bring less money there...
1. Posted by Dave W | November 2, 2007 10:19 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 10:19
2. Posted by Mikey60 | November 2, 2007 10:28 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Privatize it. Make it mine to control, not the governments. It should be a defined, protected benefit. Right now, it's nothing more than redistribution of my money.
2. Posted by Mikey60 | November 2, 2007 10:28 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 10:28
3. Posted by Mycroft | November 2, 2007 10:34 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Get it out of the government's hands. Stop it paying ofr all kinds of benefits it was never meant to pay for, like disability and such.
3. Posted by Mycroft | November 2, 2007 10:34 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 10:34
4. Posted by _Mike_ | November 2, 2007 10:50 AM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
The government shouldn't take my money and pretend to plan for my future. That includes planning for my need for a new car, planning for my need for new clothes, or planning for my need for income in old age. Phase out 'Social Security'. Put people in charge of their own lives. You make your own choices and you accept the consequences of those decisions.
If the politicians and bureaucrats want some sort of welfare program for the elderly, let's have that discussion but call it what it is... pretending it's a retirement program is nonsense and only pollutes the discussion.
4. Posted by _Mike_ | November 2, 2007 10:50 AM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 10:50
5. Posted by Farmer Joe | November 2, 2007 11:05 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
What they said.
5. Posted by Farmer Joe | November 2, 2007 11:05 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 11:05
6. Posted by Diffus | November 2, 2007 11:44 AM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I'd like to control over that portion of my earnings that the government confiscates and redistributes to others, as well. But the question was not what you would do with Social Security to ensure greater individual control or give you the chance for a larger retirement nest egg. The question was what you would do to protect Social Security; implicit in that is at least the benefits to current retirees, and perhaps the benefits promised to some or all future retirees. I'm not sure that protection and privatization are incompatible, but the comments so far don't address, or at least adequately explain, the protection aspect, certainly with respect to current retirees.
6. Posted by Diffus | November 2, 2007 11:44 AM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 11:44
7. Posted by GeminiChuck | November 2, 2007 12:59 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
When Social Security was originally established the life expectancy was 67 so most didnt draw on it for very long. Immediately extend the retirement age for those currently under the age of 60 to 70. Then give an increasing amount of investment control (as stated above) to the individual over time.
7. Posted by GeminiChuck | November 2, 2007 12:59 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 12:59
8. Posted by Old Coot | November 2, 2007 1:24 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
What #1-#3 said. And do it now.
8. Posted by Old Coot | November 2, 2007 1:24 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 13:24
9. Posted by GianiD | November 2, 2007 1:24 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Privatize it. I can invest 15% of my annual salaried income, and receive on average about 300% higher rate of return. Also, besides the obvious benefits on the micro and macro level of seniors having mroe income, there also becomes an asset to pass on to next generation.
Who exactly gets SS and SSD these days. We hear stories of many many people getting it that havent 'earned' it. Time to trim the fat if illegals, etc are receiving ss or ssd fraudulently.
9. Posted by GianiD | November 2, 2007 1:24 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 13:24
10. Posted by Mycroft | November 2, 2007 1:41 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
GeminiChuck - this is already in progress. I am young enough that my "retirement age" has already been raised to 67.
10. Posted by Mycroft | November 2, 2007 1:41 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 13:41
11. Posted by LaMedusa | November 2, 2007 1:59 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Since I happen to be one of the upcoming generations, I'm all for privitization of ss. The less control the government has over the money I earn, the better. If I can manage my retirement savings, I can certainly manage my social security. Also, future generations would include my own beneficiaries.
11. Posted by LaMedusa | November 2, 2007 1:59 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 13:59
12. Posted by Chris M. | November 2, 2007 2:51 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
"Give every person who now has a claim on Social Security a bond equal to the value of his claim, and set him free. Let him save. Let him do what he wants with it. That would not add a dollar to the debt we now have; it would just convert an unfunded debt into a funded debt."
-Milton Friedman
12. Posted by Chris M. | November 2, 2007 2:51 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 14:51
13. Posted by ExSubNuke | November 2, 2007 4:49 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Privitize it.
13. Posted by ExSubNuke | November 2, 2007 4:49 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 16:49
14. Posted by CharlieDontSurf | November 2, 2007 4:51 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I disagree with the premise of the question. Why preserve a bad idea. Teach future generations to be self sufficient.
14. Posted by CharlieDontSurf | November 2, 2007 4:51 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 16:51
15. Posted by HughS | November 2, 2007 6:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Allow anyone under age 35 to opt out of SS but they must leave what they have paid into the system in the Trust.
Means test all eligible recipients and cut off benefits at the $75,000 income level.
15. Posted by HughS | November 2, 2007 6:35 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 18:35
16. Posted by jeff | November 2, 2007 7:44 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Choice A: privitize it over a 5 year period
Choice B if choice A is too difficult politically. :) Stop rading the trust fund, again phased in over a 5 year period ...
Either plan would make the plan solvent ... Plan A would also allow individuals to improve their rate of return over current SS ...
16. Posted by jeff | November 2, 2007 7:44 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on November 2, 2007 19:44
17. Posted by Spurwing Plover | November 3, 2007 12:35 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Do something about illegal imagration and end this litigation poppycock our nation cant take all this stuff
17. Posted by Spurwing Plover | November 3, 2007 12:35 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 3, 2007 00:35
18. Posted by Dave W | November 3, 2007 1:20 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Seems kind of silly so far that no candidates are saying anything about privatizing SS.
This is obviously an unscientific poll, but the last time i saw a monolithic response on this site was... well... never.
18. Posted by Dave W | November 3, 2007 1:20 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 3, 2007 01:20
19. Posted by meep | November 3, 2007 7:17 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Turn it into welfare for the elderly. Means-testing, for sure. Shouldn't be there for comfortable retirement but for preventing elderly from being totally destitute.
19. Posted by meep | November 3, 2007 7:17 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 3, 2007 07:17
20. Posted by Just John | November 3, 2007 4:59 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Clearly the best way to protect Social Security is to not elect Republicans.
20. Posted by Just John | November 3, 2007 4:59 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on November 3, 2007 16:59
21. Posted by Bill Woessner | November 3, 2007 10:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I have to agree with CharlieDontSurf. I don't accept the premise of the question. Social Security is the second worse thing ever to happen to the American people (second only to Medicare). Why would you want to protect that?
21. Posted by Bill Woessner | November 3, 2007 10:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 3, 2007 22:14