Social Security - Exempt all state employees
Rahm Emmanuel (Former Clinton Administration member), Representative from Illinois, chastised Jack Snow yesterday during testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Emmanuel indicated that it is Medicade, not Social Security, that is of immediate concern and, furthermore, the fact the administration was $400 billion off the mark in dealing with that entitlement last year is proof positive that any numbers put forth currently on SSI or, ostensibly, anything else, be taken with a home-sized piece of salt. Speaking of salt, Mr. Emmanuel should be a little careful considering he worked for one an impeached president. OK, ok, no more ad hominems - but clearly such logic is where Emmanuel was headed.
No matter who you are or what political party you come from you would have to be an abject zombi to not realize that Social Security is a huge problem that will dwarf any other program of this country. Unless fundamental changes take place now, those three programs (SSI, Medicare and Medicade) combined will completely consume the total budget at a point certain in our not so distant future. That's right, nothing left for defense or anything else.
I think it is interesing to note that at least the GOP has a plan, the Democrats have put forth nothing - except a veiled reference to increasing taxes. If increased taxation were used, this country would be bankrupt, and our economy would be in serious trouble because there would be no money available for capital formation.
I don't believe the current plan put forth by the GOP is the best solution, but nevertheless it addresses part of the problem. Clearly, "private accounts" are part of a solution but they do not get you anywhere near solvency. Reductions in benefits, increases in the tax basis, or an increase in the age qualifications (essentially a reduction in benefits) will be necessary.
However, I would like to offer another piece to any solution. A requirement that public employees who are currently qualified to receive a retirement benefit from the state in which they live be exempted from any social security payout. They should be required to continue to pay into the system as they currently do unless they are under the age of 30. Those under 30 would be exempt completely and would be ineligible for social security.
You see, each public employee carries with him or her a double taxation, double unfunded liability. If you remove the person from the system there is a huge net savings to taxpayers. Just as we would save enormous amounts of state money by instituting universal tuition tax credits for K-12 education, we would have the same differential savings in social security for each person pulled out of the future recipient stream (unfunded liablity account would drop more than the total contribution by each person removed). Such a move doesn't solve our problem, but it would be part of the solution.
Since all of these state employees have a taxpayer funded retirement plan already it is ludicrous that we should be doubling up on these people. Get em out!
donttreadonme @ On the Borderline
No matter who you are or what political party you come from you would have to be an abject zombi to not realize that Social Security is a huge problem that will dwarf any other program of this country. Unless fundamental changes take place now, those three programs (SSI, Medicare and Medicade) combined will completely consume the total budget at a point certain in our not so distant future. That's right, nothing left for defense or anything else.
I think it is interesing to note that at least the GOP has a plan, the Democrats have put forth nothing - except a veiled reference to increasing taxes. If increased taxation were used, this country would be bankrupt, and our economy would be in serious trouble because there would be no money available for capital formation.
I don't believe the current plan put forth by the GOP is the best solution, but nevertheless it addresses part of the problem. Clearly, "private accounts" are part of a solution but they do not get you anywhere near solvency. Reductions in benefits, increases in the tax basis, or an increase in the age qualifications (essentially a reduction in benefits) will be necessary.
However, I would like to offer another piece to any solution. A requirement that public employees who are currently qualified to receive a retirement benefit from the state in which they live be exempted from any social security payout. They should be required to continue to pay into the system as they currently do unless they are under the age of 30. Those under 30 would be exempt completely and would be ineligible for social security.
You see, each public employee carries with him or her a double taxation, double unfunded liability. If you remove the person from the system there is a huge net savings to taxpayers. Just as we would save enormous amounts of state money by instituting universal tuition tax credits for K-12 education, we would have the same differential savings in social security for each person pulled out of the future recipient stream (unfunded liablity account would drop more than the total contribution by each person removed). Such a move doesn't solve our problem, but it would be part of the solution.
Since all of these state employees have a taxpayer funded retirement plan already it is ludicrous that we should be doubling up on these people. Get em out!
donttreadonme @ On the Borderline
posted by Anonymous @ 8:28 AM
<< Home