[Speed Gibson,
Wednesday December 1, 2004 at 3:10pm]
Social Security (2 of 2)
As they promised, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published on Monday 11/29 their "safer" plans for saving Social Security. As I predicted, yes they recommended tax increases. However, they also discussed a modest decrease in benefits and investing in private markets to get more investment income.
The decrease in benefits proposal required no courage, since Democrats and RINOs will never this happen. Investing in the private markets is fine for individuals, but not government. Fearing that politics would creep in, forcing investments in favored (and usually weak) companies, Republicans and some wise Democrats will block this. But the tax increases, both in percent and in annual cap are all the Strib really want anyway.
Tuesday, they followed with a polemic about Social Security's noble origin and responsible stewardship over the years. As I said in post 1, they do not understand the system, including its history.
There was no groundswell for such a program in the 1930's. It was just one of many New Deal programs. At the time, it paid very little, to very few given the life expectancy then. Over the years, benefits have risen dramatically and the system "expanded" to provide other benefits, such as the fraud-riddled disability program. And every time there's a "crisis"? Taxes are raised in what are characterized as "difficult" decisions. The maximum FICA contribution was less than $100 in 1958. Now it's over $5,000. The Star Tribune is suggesting about a $7,000 maximum as a target. Even a minimum wage worker would lose about $200 a year their way.
No, the truly difficult and truly responsible decision is to privatize Social Security.
The decrease in benefits proposal required no courage, since Democrats and RINOs will never this happen. Investing in the private markets is fine for individuals, but not government. Fearing that politics would creep in, forcing investments in favored (and usually weak) companies, Republicans and some wise Democrats will block this. But the tax increases, both in percent and in annual cap are all the Strib really want anyway.
Tuesday, they followed with a polemic about Social Security's noble origin and responsible stewardship over the years. As I said in post 1, they do not understand the system, including its history.
There was no groundswell for such a program in the 1930's. It was just one of many New Deal programs. At the time, it paid very little, to very few given the life expectancy then. Over the years, benefits have risen dramatically and the system "expanded" to provide other benefits, such as the fraud-riddled disability program. And every time there's a "crisis"? Taxes are raised in what are characterized as "difficult" decisions. The maximum FICA contribution was less than $100 in 1958. Now it's over $5,000. The Star Tribune is suggesting about a $7,000 maximum as a target. Even a minimum wage worker would lose about $200 a year their way.
No, the truly difficult and truly responsible decision is to privatize Social Security.