The Social Security Saga Continues

A story appears today in the Kansas City Star in which a British Official speaking to an AARP group urges the US not to adopt private pension plans like England did. Of course, I don't suppose the AARP would have invited the guy to speak unless he was going to repeat their party line. I can't fault the AARP for taking the position they do, advocating for their stipend receiving members. Even if the president has decreed that no one over 55 should lose their checks, they are worried that any monkeying around with the system will eventually result in the cut of benefits or raising the retirement age. The AARP wants to use the leverage of their voting machine to maximize both the rate of payments and the amount of time they receive it. If congress proposed a plan which required the 100 million taxpayers to pony up 2 grand each in order to grant 4,000 to each of the 50 million seniors, regardless of need, they'd stand fully behind it. Actually, that's what they did with the new Medicare Drug Bill. The AARP hesitated because they thought they might be able to get more. You will never hear the AARP complain that their members did not properly fund Social Security, which is the truth.

An average retiree of 70 years of age, paid an average rate of about 9%, whereas we pay 12.4% today. In 1983, when Social Security was approaching disaster, voters had the chance to do something permanent. They opted for handing the problem off to a later generation. And I can't blame them, they were looking at the same large retiree voting block that we face today. My problem is that we allow those who abuse the system to hide behind those who need it. There are plenty of low income seniors who need the money. There are many more who don't. So why did we give all of them, regardless of assets, a big drug bill?

Lastly, Bill Turner, the Brit who spoke to the AARP group, was, at the very least, truthful to his audience. His real complaint was about the complexity of Britain's private pension plan (government creating red tape? you're kidding) and that retirement ages must be raised. So I'll revise my list of reforms for SS.

1. Partial Private Accounts, intelligently administrated, with low red tape.
2. Raise the Retirement age, encourage part time work(to the point of paying bonuses).
3. Trim benefits to the wealthy.

Note: Lest someone misconstrue that I'm attacking poor seniors, I'll spell it out. I think medical care to the poorest should be increased. I'm against helping those seniors with two houses get a new caddy every couple of years, or spend most of their retirement check in a casino. You know who you are.