Ok - so now it's "the sky will be falling in 10 years" tactic. Let's say for sake of argument, we give you that fuzzy math and agree that expenditures will surpass revenues in 10 years or so.

Oh wait! Expenditures surpassing revenues is fiscally irresponsible, right?

No, that can't be right... because our government is currently run by fiscal conservatives. So, we don't have hugely growing deficits now?

If the government performs its duties, and the cost is higher than the money collected from taxes, then what should we do?

Naturally, the government should lower taxes and simply stop performing its duties. That's why we have government! To not function!

People stood up when the president's daft speech writers forgot that he had proposed a ludicrous band aid fix to a major government agency. Those writers lead him into a screwed up moment from which even a good public speaker would have had difficulty recovering.

The democrats didn't "do nothing". They said, "No" to a very bad idea. That's what we pay them to do.

I wish folks on both sides of the aisle would have the courage to do it more often, rather than blindly follow leaders into one catastrophic failure after another.

Hey tw-nyc:

You hit the nail on the head. Who said it was the "government's duty" to provide for everyone's retirement. The government should get out of the business of managing people's retirement. Not too hard to understand, is it? Welcome to reality.

Welcome to conservatism, famously the movement that stands athwart history, yelling "stop."

You can believe that conservatives must be anti-deficit, and some conservatives are (wrongly, I think), but I'm not. I'm pro-deficit.

Having said that, the President's plan, or something very much like it, is inevitable. I understand that the Democrats are the party of tax-eaters, but even the tax-eaters are going to have to face reality eventually.

tw-nyc:

You think the President was (or should have been embarrassed)? To the majority of America, he merely said "I tried to fix something...." and the Democratic party leapt to its feet, to applaud itself for being, what, exactly? Obstructionist? Conservative? Luddite? Proud? Victorious? Obnoxious?

One of the saddest parts about doing nothing now, is that we can afford to drop the COLA on Social Security for a year, while inflation is low. That may not be true in 5 years, when a 6-7-8% (or more) increase in payments will be a major hit for everyone, year after year.

Social Security took a large step forward into being an exclusive GOP issue last Tuesday night; the Democrats are just too blinded by hatred to see it. What are they going to do in 10 years? Propose massive tax increases (along the order of practically doubling the tax) and then tell the American people that no one knew how bad the balance was? Or will they offer to means-test SS and Medicare, thus splitting the nation? Or will they limit access to medical care, as has happened in TN, OR, and other states, under Democratic governors (to save money)?

You tell us what to do. What is the Democratic plan to 'save' Social Security?

As Hamilton proved, debt used to grow a nation is good. However, we've reached the point where we're charging beer, pizza and hookers on our national credit card.

It is a humane impulse to see that old folks have some retirement income. But we're still driving a 1934 Model A in 2006.

To me, the Defining Moment was when Democrats sat on their hands when the Patriot Act and NSA intercepts of enemy communications were mentioned. Even Harry Reid felt compelled to issue a statement that Democrats were all in favor of the Act, with a few minor improvements. Yeah, right.

Hillary had her own moment; when W. made a very human joke about his father and Bill Clinton, she naturally responded like a robot.

Social Security took a large step forward into being an exclusive GOP issue last Tuesday night; the Democrats are just too blinded by hatred to see it. What are they going to do in 10 years? Propose massive tax increases (along the order of practically doubling the tax) and then tell the American people that no one knew how bad the balance was? Or will they offer to means-test SS and Medicare, thus splitting the nation? Or will they limit access to medical care, as has happened in TN, OR, and other states, under Democratic governors (to save money)?

This is an easy one:

-- Declare a crisis with no solution but to vote for a major increase in SS taxes;
-- Expect the media to suffer collective Alzheimer's for them and recall nothing from a decade earlier about the warnings that a crisis was coming;
-- Tell retiring boomers that the Republicans never did anything to help you and want you to starve in the street, once you're thrown out of your house and your dog food supply runs out.

That's the strategy that's worked in the past, as long as the media's collective memory refused to reach into the past to pull out Democrats' contradictory statements and actions. With the new media options and access to past remarks on the Internet, that may not work a decade from now, but the Democrats haven't exactly been whizes at innovative ideas as of late.

tw-nyc

We run the risk of falling behind Estonia, Sweden, Chile and others I could list if I wanted to Google for your benefit. Demographics are such that the present system we are operating under depends on increasing population at a rate that appears obvious wealthy nations are having difficulty maintaining.

"Sweden was the first nation in the world to implement a universal government-run retirement system, but today it is in the process of privatizing part of its pension program. Facing problems similar to those that beset the U.S. Social Security system, the Swedes decided that personal accounts were the best way of ensuring that today's workers would enjoy a safe and comfortable retirement" link

Here is a list of nations by public debt as a percentage of GDP. It is difficult to see any correlation between debt and wealth. Japan is third on the list with a public debt 170% of GDP, Hong Kong is last with a public debt 1.8% of GDP.

As interesting is the OECD's list of central government debt net of social security as a percentage of GDP. About half our debt comes from social security, which is why 2018 is when the crisis starts. (The states, taken together, run a relatively small budget surplus.)

David Cohen:

The thing that really gets me is when the Democrats say we can dip into the "trust fund" in 2018. Hello?

I'm under something of a crush of bills at the moment (unexpected surgical operation, etc.), but as soon as I am able I'm going to begin putting a certain amount of my paycheck into a mutual fund, even though retirement is a long way off. I'm sure most people here at BroJudd already do that, and it's a nice precaution just in case the tax-eaters never do come around.

Swift recovery Matt.

Ugh, the "trust fund." Don't even get me started. A complete and utter lie that makes it impossible to have anything approaching a rational debate on social security other than with the choir.

Oh, yeah, sorry. Be well.

The govt's problem starts sooner than 10 years out: i.e. not when SocSec payments actually exceed SocSec revenues, but sooner than that, whenever the net of the two begins to decline.

When that happens, the govt must begin looking for ways to make up the diff, a diff that, absent reform, will continue to grow annually. The addl shortfall that occurs 10 years from now will simply be one more add'l bill, indistinguishable from the prior addl bills, that the govt will annually be looking to pay somehow.

I'd have to look up exactly when the net revenue begins this decline, but IIRC, it's much closer than 10 years out. 5 years? Less? Welcome to the future.

Thanks both of you for the quick-recovery wishes, but thankfully it was just a kidney-stone operation -- nothing too serious.

But it does have to be paid for, which makes me think of installing one of these.

ras:

Last estimate I saw was 2012/2013.

I think the problem on SS is not so much the Dems - all they could do (after Bush's SOTU address last year) was go to FDR's statue and genuflect, but with the Republicans in Congress, who don't have the guts for any real fight.

I'm with jim - this could be a winning issue for the GOP, if they keep it simple - SAVE IT NOW, BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE SAVED LATER.

ratbert,

Thx for the info; sounds about right.

Tho I am loathe by nature to back off even an inch to false propaganda, I think Bush would be well-advised to break his reform into two steps:

1. "Hold the money in your own name," whereby your retirement funds are put into a private acct that can only hold govt bonds (thereby removing the Dems' main scare tactic, the implication that a private acct is a riskier proposition than the status quo). This could pass today.

2. At some pt downstream, after private accts have been accepted and people have firsthand experience with them - thus removing the fear factor of the unknown - it would be the quietest and simplest of changes to allow selected private investments in the accts - i.e. some equities - at the acct holder's own discretion.

The above two-step approach just seems a lot more saleable to me, esp the refrain about holding your own money in your own name; well duh, of course that'd sell.