Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Ed Feulner :: Townhall.com Columnist
Making entitlements SAFE-er
by Ed Feulner
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


In any policy battle, it helps to have allies. So it’s good that AARP seems finally ready to help press for reform of entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

AARP’s shift can be seen in its latest TV ad, “Future Champions.” It shows children stressing the need to “find real long-term solutions to some of America’s most pressing issues -- health care and long-term financial security.”

The ad is misleading in some ways. Speaking about entitlements, one boy asks, “Will we keep those promises?” when, of course, this child has made no promises. In fact, the big three entitlement programs are promises made by older generations -- to give themselves benefits that younger workers will have to pay for through ever-rising payroll taxes.

But the overall message of the ad is that we need to make some big changes to fix entitlements. That’s a refreshing change from two years ago. Back then, when President Bush was urging the creation of individual retirement accounts within Social Security, AARP’s ads insisted, “If you had a problem with the kitchen sink, you wouldn’t tear down the entire house,” hinting that entitlement problems weren’t all that bad.

But the organization now seems to understand that the country’s on the verge of a fiscal catastrophe.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will soar from just over 8 percent of GDP today to almost 19 percent in 2050, when the cute children in today’s TV ads will be middle-aged parents. Their bill will be gigantic: $38 trillion to pay for the Social Security and Medicare benefits their parents have promised themselves -- but not arranged to pay for. Add in the national debt and other entitlements, and it works out to $440,000 for every household in the U.S. today -- enough to buy each of those families a new home. Or two.

So how can we fix things? Well, as we learned in the debate over Social Security, we can’t simply take on one problem at a time. If we attempt to reform just one of the big programs, some group will always fight for the status quo. We need to fix all three at once.

Also, we need to give lawmakers some cover. To accomplish that, Congress should form a commission such as the one Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., proposed last year. Wolf would label it “SAFE,” for “Securing America’s Future Economy.” It would have 16 voting members, including at least four members of Congress, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the secretary of the Treasury.

The commission would be bipartisan and have one year to develop plans to:

Fix the imbalance between long-term federal spending promises and projected revenues.

Boost national savings to spur domestic investment and economic growth.

Simplify the budget process to place greater emphasis on long term fiscal issues.

The first thing the commission would do is leave Washington and discuss reform options with Americans. That should help it avoid the temptation to hatch some scheme behind closed committee-room doors. Plus, the members would surely find, as The Heritage Foundation has with our ongoing Fiscal Wake-Up Tour, a real desire out there to fix entitlement programs.

Once it reports to Congress, lawmakers would be required to hold a simple up-or-down vote on each of its recommendations. This should help break the legislative logjam. Just as base-closing commissions enabled lawmakers to shutter obsolete military bases (even those in their own districts or states), a SAFE Commission would help lawmakers make necessary changes without being accused of “destroying” entitlement programs.

Many of us over 50 realize that our generation, however inadvertently, created the coming entitlement crisis, and we understand it’s up to us to solve it. AARP will be a welcome ally -- if we can believe their ads. Establishing a SAFE Commission should help us find out.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner, and co-author of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ed Feulner's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
AARP
I agree that we need to fix all three, and the Commission proposed by Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va would be a good first step in the right direction.

That said, I totally disagree with the author's assessment that AARP has had a change of heart, as it were. AARP is not good for the USA, they are a large part of the problem, and they advocate to continue the problem.

Until the AARP stops contributing monies to the campaign coffers of left-leaning Republicans and other Liberals and wackos, they will continue to be fighting against personal responsibility and for entitlement.

They are demonstrably part of the problem, not the solution. I do not see a change of heart forthcoming, only words.

I think we should tear down the AARP
The "scare the old people" campaign they launched to scuttle attempts to staunch the bleeding of the Social Security system was one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed.

I hope the AARP enjoys trying to recruit new members from the under 40 demographic. I know I'll never join them.

AARP
AARP is and always has been a sales tool. Sell you insurance, sell you one product or another endorced by the AARP. Who the heck is the AARP?

The problem is not
the AARP [which does not say anything good about them.]

This one can be laid directly at the feet of the Congress and the President, starting with FDR and his Congress right up to the present day.

Each and every year they spent [and spend] the Social Security coffers dry. They spend it on everything under the sun -- instead of on who it was established for. They expanded the eligibility to cover just about everyone in the US, entitled to it or not, many of whom paid not a cent into the fund.

It is getting harder every day to find a doctor or lab that will take new Medicare patients...and I can hardly blame them. I can't wait for Hillary's mandatory national health program to become law; the one that criminalizes and jails anyone who goes outside her program and finds their own doctor...now THERE is a brilliant idea [yeah, right].

Reform will never happen. Congress will refuse to lose that much "free" money. They will, instead, simply reduce the amount paid to the seniors and keep the rest. Business as usual. Ho-hum.

Big numbers, no references
Feulnet writes: "$440,000 for every household in the U.S. today" as being the bill for social security. This might not be as big as it seems. Suppose it's for a family of 4, that means $110,000 per person. If it's a total lifetime benefit, it should take a working lifetime to save, say, 40 years (25 - 65). This makes it $2,600/year, which sounds like a normal amount to me. And what about interest? Since we're talking about long term saving it takes a very small rate of return to get the same amount with half the input -- $1,300/year.

AARP equals NEA
I read that the AARP started out as the retired branch of the NEA. In the beginning it had almost the same board of directors as the NEA. That's why it leans left.

liberalgoodman
Somewhere along the line I read that if you started saving just $10 a week [or maybe a month], by the time you retire 40-odd years later, you would have well over $1 million saved, including compound interest.

I read that long before the usury laws were lifted so that is a very low estimate. If memory serves, it was promoted by the insurance companies...

The Coming Entitlement Meltdown

CONGRESS THE USELESS
FOR YEARS THE CONGRESS AND ELECTED LEADERSHIP HAS GOTTEN USED TO DOING LESS WORK FOR MORE PAY, MORE PERKS, MORE FREEBIES AND THEY VOTE THIS EXPENSE IN AT YOUR, THE TAX PAYERS EXPENSE. DUMB, DUMB, DUMB AND SHAME ON YOU THE TAXPAYER. YOU HIRED'EM AND YOU CAN FIRE'EM, TRY IT, IT'S CALLED DEMOCRACY. THESE CLOWNS ARE NOT ROYALTY, EVEN THOUGH THEY THINK THEY ARE, DEMAND YOU GET YOUR MONEY'S WORTH. HELL THEY DEMAND YOU DO WHAT THEY TELL YOU TO DO, DON'T THEY????

ABOUT JUST ONE OF THE ENTITLEMENTS, HOW MANY YEARS HAS THE PUBLIC BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT THE WAY SS MONIES IS ABUSED AND NEVER REPAID, GIVEN TO THE UNDESERVING AND USED AS A FORM OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SOMEONE WANT TO VOLUNTEER AND ANSWER??? YOU CAN BET THE DEAF AND DUMB GAME THAT CONGRESS PLAYS WILL GO ON FOREVER IF YOU LET THAT BUNCH OF SLACKERS DO IT.

AMERICA ASK FOR YOUR MONEY'S WORTH, YOU PAY FOR IT THRU THE NOSE.

The markets will solve this problem.
Politicians will never solve a problem. Why do taxpayers think the government will ever solve a problemz? They create an ever growing bureacracy where they suck more many up and nothing gets done except dish the money out for votes. This has been the modus operandi of politicians from the beginning but "we the people" keep coming back for more. The responder "Rollo" is right, FDR created the gravy. The government saw the gravy as delicious and it's fed out of the trough because we keep believing, whether Republican or Democrat, that the government is out for our best interest. The market will solve the problem. When the dollar is worth nothing then they will take action. The government will confiscate all that you have. If your a product of the public school system and don't know history, learn about it on your own. To the author's "many of us over 50 realize that our generation, however inadvertently created the coming entitlement crisis....". What? How many actuaries have been produced in the last 50 years? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out basic population growth and debt vs. income. If anyone thinks politicians will save this country, then I bless the me-brought down my own country-boomer generation. May your parents be proud and the rest of us just thankful to have been in your presence.

$440,000?
The share of that has to be added to the $3,500 per worker per year for debt interest and the $7,000 each year for compliance costs that are hidden in prices, etc.

Also, to actually determine the share, you have to count workers. Currently, even though we have 300 million people, only 1/2, or about 146 million are in the workforce and of them 22 million are government employees according to the bureau of labor statistics leaving about 124 million to pay the salaries of the the 22 million, all government costs, Social security, Medicare, other taxes, and then the sales taxes on what he buys. Since that is $2.8 trillion for one year's budget, and all taxes on business is in the prices we have to pay, each worker's burden is huge. He just doesn't know it because the taxes are hidden in the prices we pay for most.

For a $17,000 a year worker, he is in the 50% tax bracket even though he pays no income tax.
35% hidden tax and compliance costs as he lives spending all his paycheck to get by.
7.5% payroll tax
8% sales tax in most states, especially on fuel.

That is 50.5% and he didn't even pay income tax.

The other problem is that Congress plans to legally immigrate 67 to 100 million to replace the 78 million leaving the work force to keep the ration at 3 to 1 workers to retirees.

That means 1/3 more hospitals, schools, prisons, roads, government services, etc. will be needed that all will have to have more tax revenue for and the "low wage" immigrants aren't going to be able to pay a full share. So add that to the middle-class worker too.

Now, on top of that you have the declining dollar which means all purchases at Walmart from China are going up reducing what a worker can spend on other things. 100 million immigrants mean home prices skyrocket as the full impact of them hit because the 78 million retiring will still need a home. That may sound good for the person that already has a home, but try buying your first home after that take effect.

Without reform, we have to have that huge number because the system was designed as a ponzi scheme were you constantly have to have a growing number of workers to support the longer living seniors.

Then add the ripoff with S.S. benefits.
90% of only the first $606 of each months earnings.
Then only 32% of the earnings above that to $3,653 and only 15% above that.

For a middle-class worker, they will only get about 41% of their earnings as a benefit check. Can you live on 41% of what you make?

Also, by underreporting inflation, seniors on social security have been losing buying power every year even though they get a COLA increase. Yet, even underreporting inflation has left the fund depleted or will by 2017. Without the interest on the bonds we get for loaning the government all money, the fund would already have gone broke. While all of that is done "on paper" and there is no real bonds, we do have the amount created by interest credited to the fund to pay benefits.

The way that works is like opening a bank account where the bank pays you 5% in interest on your money, charges you 7% in fees to pay that 5% and keeps your money when you die. You even pay the interest on the money you loaned to the government. What's not to like about that deal.

About 30 countries around the world have reformed their social security. We many not want any of the exactly the same but we do have lots of examples to choose from and adapt to our own needs and demographics. I have suggested two bond funds like those in the Thrift Savings Plan 11 million not on social security have used.

While they also have 3 index funds to choose from, keeping the choices to a government bond fund that never loses principle and a AAA rated bond fund that did lose 1% one year in the last 10, a $17,000 worker would get the same benefit check from 4% as he does now from 12.4% and a couple more percent could go for disability and survivor benefit.

The down side? We may be facing a collapse of the dollar and that would reduce even the buying power of income from government bonds so much that you could live on $10,000 a month as you do now on $1,000 a month. But, that is true with the current system too, isn't it?

There is no way out of this mess without some pain. Also somebody say 25-65 but that is already up to 67 for full retirement for many approaching retirement and going to keep climbing if some solutions are enacted Congress is proposing.


Totalization Treaty with Mexico

Not factored in is the Totalization Treaty with Mexico already negotiated. This will make illegal aliens eligible for SS (once they get legal status, that's why guestworker/amnesty will be passed first before W. signs it) in just 6 quarters or 18 months(combined Mexican or U.S., even if illegal at the time worked) for the same benefits you and I had to work 40 quarters or 10 years to qualify for. This will bankrupt Social Security much sooner than anyone is counting on.

The Public Trough and Ponzi
Hitting the taxpayer up to provide funds for the 'needy' INDIVIDUAL was probably never considered as 'thinkable' when the Constitution was presented for ratification. It most assuredly was not considered 'Constitutional' in the 1830's, or else the "It's not ours to give" speech would be just a joke when US Representative David Crockett made that speech.
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/crockett_not_yours_to_give.asp

Crockett related a conversation with one Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce reportedly said in part, "when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people."

That statement alone should have been a warning that politicians and even judges and Justices on the highest Court in the United States should look upon the Constitution as a firm contract determined by what 'the People' understood and currently understand it to mean -- as written and intended.

I believe that Mr. Bunce could have said 'when GOVERNMENT once begins to stretch its power", there is no limit to it and no security for the people (the citizens of the United States).

'Government' HAS stretched its power to, or well beyond, the very boundaries of the tyranny that was so detested by the authors of the Declaration of Independence. Not only has taken to give away, but has loaded the American citizen with a debt that is so monstrous as to defy belief in order to provide funds for giveaway programs.

I cannot imagine any responsible or sane person willing to go deeply into debt to give away the proceeds of debt, particularly if their own family would have to suffer, and most assuredly not if they were already struggling.

Some may say that not all of the 'public debt' (or public disgrace) went to giveaway programs, and possibly that is true but when the Nation is ALREADY deeply in debt and more giveaways are added, where is that money coming from? Even the current interest on the 'debt' is beyond the total debt 50 or so years ago.

Who are the deceivers who would make us believe that it is 'responsible' to give away money we don't have? Quite clearly, those who profit from getting it are in favor of getting it.

OLD MAN compared this mess to a Ponzi scheme, and rightly so because people are duped into believing that such schemes are 'sound investments' when in truth they are mathematically unsustainable after just a few 'iterations'. However, 'government' has two things going for it that the Ponzi schemers do not have. When 'government' operates them, they are LEGAL and 'government' can FORCE people to 'participate'.

We have, by and large, been suckered into believing that government can give us something of greater value than the price we are forced to pay because we have been led to believe that 'someone else' will make up the difference. We seem surprised, even outraged, when we discover that WE are that 'someone else' and finally have to acknowledge that we have been suckered.

I, personally, do not vote for any candidate who indicates a willingness to vote for ANY giveaway -- either for a 'new' one or for sustaining an old one because I do not believe I 'owe' anyone except my progeny (within limits I set myself). I give to causes and even to people if I feel I can afford such charity.

Once again, alluding to Mr. Bunce, 'government' may be relieving some but at the same time may be taking from thousands who are more needy than the recipients of government 'generosity'.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.