2 ms·

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're asking, I think you answered your own question. Social Security is not unsustainable because of young people, it's unsu

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're asking, I think you answered your own question. Social Security is not unsustainable because of young people, it's unsustainable because of the glut of baby boomers who are coming into retirement age. Offering to let young people choose their own retirement plans doesn't absolve them of the need to pay for those of their parents. It's the worst of both worlds: the old still enjoy their unpaid-for benefits, while the young are forced to pay for them and denied the "get more than you put in" scheme their parents enjoy. Making noises about helping the young is meaningless when you turn around and pass Medicare Part D, another entitlement enjoyed by the old and paid for by the young. Oh and, while we're at it, let's slash tax rates for the rich, because they really haven't gotten a fair shake in America. The combination of Bush' tax cuts and entitlements simply burdened the young even more direly than they already had been. The Ryan budget that Romney was forced to adopt was worse still: the apotheosis of "more subsidies for the old and rich and fuck the young and poor". As I said, until the GOP abandons their crusade against the young and poor (who are essentially synonymous), they will continue to be the party of the old and rich. The reason Democrats enjoy such overwhelming popularity with the young is not because the young are married to Democratic policies, but because the alternative is even less palatable.

twoodfin 13y ago
I don't understand your logic. The Democrats were for a more expansive Part D, not a cheaper one. Do you think they're more enthusiastic about reforming Social Security to make it a better deal for the young? They're certainly not for reducing cost-of-living increases through adoption of something like chained CPI. The most common Democratic policy prescription I've heard for Social Security is lifting the payroll tax cap, which certainly doesn't hurt current seniors or Boomers about to retire, but rather young people who have some peak earnings years in their future over the current cap. As to "privatization"-style reform, I think the theory was that the sorts of instruments available would have better long term yields than Treasuries (I'm actually rather skeptical of this). Higher yields would mean less future budgetary obligation, and you have to start somewhere, no? At the same time, the government could skim some of that excess off the top and use it to replace some of the redirected SS revenue. Yes, you would certainly also have to take money out of general revenue for a generation or two to cover the transition and/or any market swings, but money from general revenue is provided by our still (post-Bush tax cuts) highly progressive income tax, rather than a regressive payroll tax.

twoodfin 13y ago

I don't understand your logic. The Democrats were for a more expansive Part D, not a cheaper one. Do you think they're more enthusiastic about reforming Social Security to make it a better deal for the young? They're certainly not for reducing cost-of-living increases through adoption of something like chained CPI. The most common Democratic policy prescription I've heard for Social Security is lifting the payroll tax cap, which certainly doesn't hurt current seniors or Boomers about to retire, but rather young people who have some peak earnings years in their future over the current cap. As to "privatization"-style reform, I think the theory was that the sorts of instruments available would have better long term yields than Treasuries (I'm actually rather skeptical of this). Higher yields would mean less future budgetary obligation, and you have to start somewhere, no? At the same time, the government could skim some of that excess off the top and use it to replace some of the redirected SS revenue. Yes, you would certainly also have to take money out of general revenue for a generation or two to cover the transition and/or any market swings, but money from general revenue is provided by our still (post-Bush tax cuts) highly progressive income tax, rather than a regressive payroll tax.