Response

That's a completely fair request (although, when the advocates page is published, it will actually be a link to others across the spectrum with positions they advocate: it's not about the folks at TASS (all one of us).

As for us (me):

Age 60 (too old to be personally affected by any changes to SS), politics liberal, no party affiliation. Design websites for a living. Was a poli sci major long ago, with minor in econ. Have BA and MBA. A widower living in CT with last of three children (15 year old son who receives SS survivor benefits on his mother's account until he completes High School). No financial backing from anyone (revenues from google ads on pages don't even cover the costs of advertising the site on google.) Just someone with a view that seems to irritate both sides. But the bulk of the site isn't about my view. Hopefully, there is sufficient documentation and sourcing that the site is seen as strictly "up the middle" -- a fair and honest assessment in a world full of hyperbole....

As for your PS: We have no mail lists. The only e-mail you will ever receive from us is the direct response to one you send.

Response

Honestly? We don't know....

If no changes whatsoever are made to Social Security, sometime between your 87th and 97th birthday, more or less (long term economic forecasts are anything but precise), the Social Security trust funds will run out of the cushion it used to pay you fuill benefits and will only be able to pay you about 80% of what the current rules would entitle you to.

But, politically, that's an impossibility, Sometime between now and then Congress will change the rules and you will either get the same benefits you would have gotten under the currenbt rules, or a smaller reduction will have been enacted. We can't tell. Not because we don't have the math, but because no one knows what the specific plan will be. The President hasn't offered one and it's highly improbable that Congress will enact the exact plan he offers (if, indeed, he ever offers one).

It's also hard to predict what effect the fact that you contributed under the current system, with the realistic expectation that you'd receive benefits according to the current system's rules for 20-30 years wil have on the way the President and Congress elect to enact the transition to the new program.

But there are things you can watch for....

If the current system can't pay you what it seems to have promised (and it can not), then watch to see if it raises *new* revenues (beyoind those needed to convert from a pay as you go system to privatized savings accounts) because if it doesn't raise new money, it can not pay the benefits already promised -- the whole reason the claimed for the "crisis" -- and in some way benefits will be cut and, as someone who be alive when the revenue stream will not be enough to cover the bnefit payment stream, you *will* be affected -- adversely.

Don't look to claims about privatization to help you. You will have a limited time in privatized accounts and, while averages may look look over the very long haul, you won't have the "very long haul" and the investements counted on to provide the benefits will be far more risky for you than for someone just entering the work force., with over 40 years of saving to even out the bumps of the market. Look at the returns projected for someone who does not elect to save in a private account -- so far I haven't seen anything from the administration that provides those individuals with anything close to the benefits they'd get under the current system. Even worse, I haven't seen anything that gives then anything close to what they'd have gotten under the current system, even after it was forced to cut benefits so they didn't exceed revenues.

But it's still the opening rounds of a dance that is more about politics than doing anything about Social Security. We'll just have to wait and say how it plays out.

I'm sorry I couldn't give you a more definitive answer but I hope that, at least, I've explained why.

Response

Funny thing is that we offered *two* solutions, both of which should satisfy even the most reading-impaired paleocon (except that we insist they be paid for, not charged to the national credit card).

Answering one reponse of this sort is (more than) enough.

Response

I try like the dickens to keep the political issues off TASS, proper. But the mailbag is fine for discussing the pure politics. I agree with you to a large extent, although I think the process picks the politicians, not that the politicians pick the process. By that, I mean that a successful politician is one who does what his or her constituents want (or can be convinced they want) and that is the sole means by which they survive. It makes difficult issues with no happy endings an anathema to the politicians — and Social Security is just such an issue.

Polls show that the American people, by and large, oppose increasing taxes and object to having their benefits cut. But the only way to solve the problem is to admit that, whatever changes we make to bring the system back in balance involves one or both of those solutions. Even options like converting from pay-as-you-go to a funded savings program hide what is an increased tax (and, in most programs I've seen marketed as "privatization," the reduced benefits).

Sadly, the approach taken by this administration is politics played at its worse. Bush has offered only two guidelines - privatization and no tax increase. He's left the dirty work to Congress to come up with where the benefit cuts must occur (and how to pay the trillions and trillions of dollars it will cost to convert to privatized accounts). And, as someone who not affiliated with any political party, but is openly liberal, I have to add it's a bit disingenuous of the Republican leadership in Congress to insist the Democrats come up with an alternative, when they, themselves, haven't addressed the key issue (how to bring the system back in balance), although they've eliminated the one tax increase the President claims he would consider — raising the cap on taxable salaries.