All I am saying is give fairness a chanceBy James Hamilton

"Not fair." How many times a day does my young daughter tell me that? And I always respond, that sometimes things aren't fair.

Pretty shallow of me, I know, but it seems to work for now.

It's also not fair that Americans currently in the workforce are paying one dollar of every eight they earn to provide Social Security benefits to today's retirees. (Don't get me started on the surplus. Talk about unfair!) The General Accountability Office estimates future workers will pay one dollar of every five to support the program in the future.

20% OF THEIR EARNINGS JUST TO SUPPORT SOCIAL SECURITY.

And I haven't even gotten started the cost of Medicare and other federal expenses that come out of yours and my paycheck.

Right now, bloggers and self-interested groups are taking to the internet to blast the Treasury Department's attempt to highlight areas where most folks involved in this debate agree.

You short-sighted, self-centered, children-hating naysayers are at it again. Wait, "children-hating"? That seems a little strong.

On the contrary, for those of you trying - yet again - to derail efforts to fix Social Security and Medicare's solvency, by failing to do anything now you are - by default - subjecting your children and grandchildren to a tax burden that will keep them locked into a state of dependency throughout their lives. That's what every loving parent wants, right?

Come on. Let's see where we can agree and do the hard work necessary to get this problem behind us.

All I am saying is give reason and fairness - not blind political rhetoric - a chance.

Treasury Dept. Shows LeadershipBy James Hamilton

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is a realistic guy. That's why he commissioned a handful of internal studies that highlight areas of agreement between those who support and those who oppose updating Social Security.

Predictably, liberal bloggers have taken to the ether to blast Paulson, the White House, and anything that remotely resembles a willingness to talk openly about the problems facing the nation if we fail to act responsibly now.

Look. Franklin Roosevelt was a decent guy who had a lot of great ideas and a few pretty loony ones. To his credit, he threw them all against the proverbial wall to see which ones stuck. When a program succeeded, he took credit for it and moved on to the next problem. If a program failed or was declared unconstitutional, that didn't slow him down. He came up with new ideas. That's why he ranks among the top presidents.

BUT THAT WAS OVER 70 YEARS AGO.

Similarly, Lyndon Johnson (from my great state of Texas) had a lot of compassion and energy. He succeeded in getting Medicare enacted and wanted to do much more, but he was mired beyond hope in the Vietnam War.

AND THAT WAS OVER 40 YEARS AGO.

Isn't it time to look at the programs in the bright light of the 21st Century and see if they're still doing what they need to do for Americans? And, just as important, to determine if future generations - you know, the ones that actually pay for the programs - are being treated fairly?

ImathowupBy James Hamilton

"Imathowup."

That’s what the people in an office where I once worked would say whenever they heard politicians – regardless of party affiliation – spout the same tired old arguments for or against the issue du jour.

Those same tired old arguments are starting to emerge about the future of Social Security and Medicare and – YOU GUESSED IT – IMATHOWUP.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has taken to the stump in recent weeks proclaiming that her husband saved Social Security through 2055 so there’s no need to worry. This is blatantly incorrect.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama loudly claims removing the wage cap on earnings subject to FICA will fix the problem just fine. While Obama's idea would narrow the funding shortfall, it is incorrect to say it would fix the program's solvency crisis.

Not to be outdone, presidential candidate Jonathan Edwards wants to subject wages over $200,000 to FICA. More reasonable, of course, but still a long way from fixing the program's problems.

In reality, it's probably a good thing that the candidates are talking about Social Security's future, but they show tremendous short-sightedness and irrresponsibility by ruling out of raising the retirement age, "cutting benefits," "privatization," indeed anything that would make possible any outcome other than huge tax increases for our kids.

Now if you'll excuse, I'm not feeling well.

Conrad shows courage, Pelosi does notBy Heidi Neel

Democratic Senate Finance Chair Kent Conrad just proposed a 16 member task force to deal with funding shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare. Conrad describes the shortfall as a "coming crisis" and calls his task force a "bipartisan panel for responsible fiscal action."

And not a moment too soon. In a 9/17 interview with the AP, Alan Greenspan expressed concern about expanding social programs, especially with a wave of 78 million baby boomers starting to retire in January. 

"The whole slew of candidates - it's mainly Democrats, but some Republicans - want to add to it more," Greenspan said. "Nobody wants to ... look at the issue and come up with a rational solution. This is, I regret to say, irresponsible."

And speaking of irresponsibility, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement last night on Conrad's proposed task force, indicating that no benefits will be cut. That's code for stick-it-to-young-people.

To be honest, that's not so much irresponsible as it is incredibly unfair. After being handed the gavel as America's first female Speaker of the House, Pelosi gathered her grandchildren at the podium, saying “Let’s hear it for the children. We’re here for the children.”

If only she were there for the children, she'd be focusing on long-term policies and how they affect future generations, rather than short term policies and how they help capture votes. Pelosi's no-benefit-cut pledge will heap upon her grandchildren a near 40 percent tax hike. So much for the children.

But not all politicians are concerned with merely capturing votes. In a recent interview with Senator John McCain, For Our Grandchildren's Tim Penny (MN-D) asked, "Are we Americans no longer capable of accepting a shared sacrifice for a common goal or good?" Check out what McCain had to say.

Let's hope that Senator Conrad can jump-start this much needed discussion on entitlement reform and that rational, responsible ideas prevail, spreading the difficult choices and sacrifices necessary to fix these social programs among all generations.

 

Don't Shoot the Idea Before It Gets Off the GroundBy James Hamilton

     U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) may be on to something. His proposal for Universal Savings Accounts in Thursday's Wall Street Journal isn’t new. But before protected account supporters start complaining, as my old boss, former Congressman Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) likes to say, “Let’s not shoot the idea before it gets off the ground.”

     Emanuel worked as an advisor in the Clinton White House. Today, he’s one of the Democratic Party’s top leaders in the House of Representatives. Maybe my diatribe earlier this on the Ds and their minions was a little over-heated. Here’s one Democrat who seems to be sincere.

At least on paper, Emanuel tips his hat to the efforts – failed, of course – by his former boss, President Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush during their administrations to tackle the financial crisis facing Social Security. Emanuel acknowledges, though, that lawmakers need to step back and take a look at the larger picture. And in this, I think he’s right.

     The Illinois congressman introduced legislation last year that makes signing up for savings plans at work automatic. Upon being first being employed, a worker is automatically registered in his or her company’s retirement savings plan. Initial analysis shows this legislation is working, but Emanuel says this is only half the battle: now we need to work to make savings universal.

     The universal savings accounts he describes have a familiar ring to them. They would be modeled on the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) that all federal employees – including members of Congress elected since 1984 – can choose to participate in. For Our Grandchildren’s National Advisory Council Chairman, former Congressman Tim Penny (D-MN), has often compared the protected accounts he envisions to the TSP program.

     Assuredly, the devil is ALWAYS in the details, but Congressman Emanuel’s calls for “fiscal discipline and bipartisanship” sound like the same song many of us have been singing for over a decade. Let's listen to what he has to say.

Cost of Business v. Cost of Doing NothingBy James Hamilton

Congressional Democrats and their minions, imps, and lesser demons are busy these days trumpeting the latest finding from the General Accountability Office: "The Bush administration spent at least $2.8 million traveling around the country promoting its plan to let many people divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts."

Predictably, key Democrats pounced on the report's release. "Campaign-style events cost tens of thousands to stage and millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to try to convince the American people to support a flawed and unworkable proposal," crowed Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Democrats' primary ally in Washington, the AARP, piled on: "It would have been better had we been able to spend more time and resources trying to strengthen Social Security for the future instead of on ways to carve out individual accounts," said David Certner, AARP legislative policy director.

Okay. Let's start with Waxman, the one who requested the GAO report in the first place. On it's face, it's clear this information should be made public. Public funds were used to fund the tour so the public should know how much it cost. However, it's also clear Waxman and his aides are driven by political acrimony, not the public's need to know.

More glaring, however, is Waxman's willingness to proclaim the GAO's findings in this report but IGNORE the agency's findings on the future of Social Security, Medicare, and other such programs. What has Chairman Waxman done personally to get Democratic congressional leaders to take a single constructive step toward addressing these program's long-term solvency issues?

And don't get me started on AARP. This organization has done more to derail legitimate discussion on the issue than any other special interest group. The group's leaders in DC talk loudly about opposing significant reform efforts that would allow today's workers the opportunity to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in protected accounts, but AARP offers its own members a whole array of mutual funds in which to invest. Hmm....

Take a look at most of GAO chief U.S. Comptroller General David Walker's speeches over the last few years and you'll see a see a theme running through them: In the coming financial crises, America faces a "financial tsunami" that will "swamp the ship of state."

Walker's very specific. The U.S. currently has over $40 TRILLION in financial obligations to current and future Social Security and Medicare recipients. Where's this money going to come from, he asks. It represents a $400,000 tax burden on every American worker today.

That's real money, Mr. Waxman. Where is your righteous indignation now?

We're listening and waiting, Mr. Chairman.

HALLELUAH!By Lea Abdnor

   This is a special day…a day that one of the candidates for President is being honest with the American public about entitlements.  Whatever else you may think of him, Fred Thompson has the courage to tell the truth about the tsunami of entitlements debt ahead of us and make it a priority to face and fix the problems.  Sen. Thompson specifically said that if elected, he intends to work in a bipartisan manner to fix Social Security.  HALLELUAH!!

Saving Grandma; Condemning the Rest of UsBy James Hamilton

In recent days, the Associated Press noted that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) told a national meeting of the AARP that she wants to "save Social Security" by ruling out every possible alternative to fixing the long-term ailments of the program. Seems to me you really can't save something that most people acknowledge is heading toward a cliff if you eliminate all the options for saving it.

Hmmm... Grandma is choking on the lima beans, but we can't use the Heimlich Maneuver because we might break a rib and we can't do CPR because we might hurt her feelings and we can't do mouth to mouth because, well, you know, grandma's breath isn't what it used to be.

Geez, Senator. You've told the American people what you will do to keep elderly voters happy. Now, what will you do for the rest of us?