Not if you understand how American government is supposed to work or what Ben’s point is. The founders wisely went for a republican system of representative democracy. That means that if 80% of people think Star Wars is a good idea, but 51% of professional legislators who are better informed realize that it’s not a good idea, the legislators should vote it down. I realize they risk being voted out of office if they do something really unpopular, but their guaranteed terms (particularly for senators, who are the most powerful representatives) are supposed to allow them to ride out that sort of controversy. Same deal with the presidency, obviously–a president may have to take a stand on something that 51% of the populace isn’t in favor of. We elect these people to be leaders, not proxies. The idea is that they have the time (because it’s their job) to be better informed about the nuances of this stuff than we are.
“I understand that. Cost of doing business and all, but to claim that dishonest politicians, backroom deals, “I scratch your back” bill voting does not go on and that the waste is not out of control is hard for me to swallow.”
Unless I’m misinterpreting, your definition of “out of control” appears to be “increases my tax bill by .5%”.
Rywill, and these better informed legislators are supposed to resist the expressed majority will of their constituents, how? Near as I can tell, you and Ben both want politicians to just suck it up and eliminate or privatize Social Security - that’s leadership, because its right regardless of what the public thinks, and so on. Never mind that they’d immediately be thrown out and replaced by politicians who support Social Security, because a broad, long-term majority likes Social Security as is; I’m having trouble figuring out your objection. Unless we’re talking “I’m obviously right and I’m angry no one agrees with me.”
And the “insulation from the whims of the popular majority” thing is supposed to be on short term, passionate issues. This is the complete opposite of what Social Security is.
Way to conflate numerous posts by different people. All I’m talking about here is your comment that majority should rule; Ben’s comment that no, this is a republic; and your non sequitur that we’re not a republic because our representatives have to pass votes by majorities. You’re wrong.
But to answer your assertion–wait, I already answered it in the post you were replying to. Start with the sentence that goes “I realize they risk being voted out of office” and read from there. Edit: I see you edited in a token sop at this while I was posting. Although politicians are better able to ride out shorter term passions, they have the time to make a case for longer term ones as well. Presidents make unpopular decisions with some regularity–especially the good ones. So do senators, although not as often.
Yeah, I expect exactly that, since our government is not a democracy. The founders disliked democracy for exactly this reason–sometimes the majority of the public doesn’t know what the hell it’s talking about.[/quote]
In other words: I think some programs, like Social Security, are a waste of money. I don’t care whether a majority supports them; they should be done away with. Why? Because the majority is wrong. Mind you, I can’t find the bit in the constitution where it says I get to determine they’re clearly wrong, and never mind that half or more of these elected officials disagree with me that they’re “clearly wrong”, and that the program is perfectly constitutional and has enjoyed 60%+ support for generations, but I’m right and my opinion should count more than anyone else’s, apparently.
Replacing Social Security is not taking a short run unpopular stand; at this point, it’s the “political” equivalent of passing a constitutional amendment - extremely long lasting and important.
You know, I think the public is “obviously wrong” about opposing single payer health care and supporting NMD, but I think that’s because they’re misinformed, and if I can’t convince them, too bad. That’s the way our government is set up.
Excellent point. I didn’t realize that Ben was saying he thought it was unjust that he can’t rule by fiat. Actually, I’m still having trouble finding that part of his post. Could you point it out to me?
Perhaps you’re having difficulty because Ben was simply arguing from logic and his values that abolishing SS is the right thing to do and he wishes some politicians would have the foresight and fortitude to do it. To which your counter-argument is that if 60% of the people like it, it must be a good idea.
I find myself unable to counter this unassailable logic. No gay marriage, and slavery for the southern blacks! Gosh, all this time and it turns out Cleve was right after all. Thanks for showing me the light, Jason.
I’m out of this thread. Have the last word.
Are you kidding? The’re a terriffic way for congress to redistriburte wealth and use as a campaign tool. Thank goodness we have a lock box in government to protect all of our money.
So–and let me see if I have this right–your argument goes like this: if something the government does enjoys popular support, it would be wrong to oppose it. Can I use this argument on you?
Do any of you expect to collect Social Security? I sure as hell don’t. I expect the program to be bankrupt or me to still be working at 70 because I could not save enough to retire…and then I will keel over at the fry fryer in my local McDonalds of a heart attack and the government gets to keep my whole “investment”
Nope.
I wonder if I could find a better place to invest that money. Hmmmmm…no, the government knows what its doing.
To stray back on topic a bit… From Rywill’s linked article:
The White House said on Tuesday the federal budget deficit would balloon to a record $455 billion this fiscal year after absorbing heavy costs from the war in Iraq, and then climb $20 billion higher in 2004, a presidential election year.
But the White House said the deficit would improve, pledging for the first time to cut it in half by 2006, though officials did not spell out how they would do so.
Whew, they’re planning on having it cut in half in a few years, thank goodness. This is brilliant strategy, actually. Skyrocket the deficit to record amounts (previous record is $290 billion), and then promise to cut it in half. It’s like the logic of an alcoholic: “Ok, I’m drinking 14 beers a day today. Last week I was drinking 6 a day… if I cut back to 7 a day, that means I’m recovering!”
Sad thing is, Bush can easily defend this by playing on the fears of the majority. When a Democrat points out how bad the deficit is, expect the response to be “Are you saying we should compromise national security and let the terrorists kill thousands of American citizens just to save a few dollars?”
As for social security… if the government wasn’t allowed to spend the current social security surplus, and if the government lent out that surplus in Treasury-like bonds, social security could go on almost indefinitely. This year, the SS surplus is around $150 billion. However, the government is spending that $150 billion instead of keeping it in the system. Doesn’t take a financial genius to realize how easily that kind of annual surplus could offset the future forcast SS deficit. But in common government logic, “if we have extra, we damn well have to spend it. Save for a rainy day? Screw that”
And that’s why Social Security is such a tough program to do away with. Theoretically, people that have paid into SS should be able collect any payments due to them even if the program were ended today, but the federal government just spends the money immediately rather than investing it, so you have this system where you are robbing Peter (people paying into the system right now) to pay Paul (people collecting SS), and if you cancel the program, everyone gets screwed. Alternately, the program could bankrupt itself, and everyone would be screwed anyway. If this is supposed to be a safety net for retirees, I’m unimpressed. Can you imagine if a private bank conducted business like this?
Investor: “I’ve come to collect the money I put into that CD.”
Bank: “Er… we sort of spent it all.”
But when government does it, it’s just business as usual.
That’s my big beef. (hehe)
The government is given a lotta slack that any other business would not get for a second. “Its the best we have and the best in the world” is an excuse I hear. That is true, but is there any reason we cannot improve on it.
ANd back to the There is waste in any business issue . I am not buying that either after further thought. This should not be an unwieldly business. Its our governemnt and my money which is operating it. Sure, the company I work for wastes money and I know because I do the books. I am in no place to make changes to rectify any waste by the owners and what they let employees get by with. If it was my business, you can be sure I would keep a closer eye on waste and make changes to eliminate it.
When was the social security system introduced? Was that during the Great Depression? The government might not have had enough money on hand to pay the recipients without using the income from the system.
Keep in mind that when they started Social Security – they had to do it that way, because of course, no one had paid anything in. With the program startingin 37 and payouts starting in 40, the 3 year gap sufficing to build up the funds enough so they could start paying out.
There’s a nice history at Social Security History for those wanting to read me.
So–and let me see if I have this right–your argument goes like this: if something the government does enjoys popular support, it would be wrong to oppose it. Can I use this argument on you?[/quote]
You didn’t say it was “wrong.” You said it was obviously wrong and started grumbling about how the system was broken because no one agreed with you.
And how can the government itself go bankrupt? And you do know that banks “spend” those CDs you give them by loaning them out, right?
The Social Security surplus is not “spent”, it is invested in government bonds–traditionally a conservative investment, safe but with a relatively low yield.
The government spends the money it gets by selling these bonds to Social Security, just as it spends the money it gets by selling bonds to other investors.
People who say that Social Security is going to go “bankrupt” are essentially saying that the government is going to repudiate those bonds held by Social Security. They don’t explain why the government would or should do this.
Huh? What the hell is the difference? It’s obvious to me; I am well aware that it’s not obvious to everyone, or the program would already be gone.
and started grumbling about how the system was broken because no one agreed with you.
Again, huh? I don’t think the system is broken, and I never said that it is. And there are a number of posters in this thread that have agreed with me on one point or another (and others that haven’t).
And how can the government itself go bankrupt? And you do know that banks “spend” those CDs you give them by loaning them out, right?
That’s an investment, which is a little different than raiding the social security surplus to pay for other government programs. The proper analogy would be if the bank took my CD money and used it build an employee tennis court, then told me “tough luck” when I came to withdraw my money.
But the bigger problem, as I said before, lies with the overall structure of the system, which relies on current taxpayers supporting current retirees. That works fine, in theory, as long as the government uses the money that comes into the system as intended, and as long as the ratio of taxpayers to retirees stays even (or tipped towards the taxpayer side, as it has been for the last few decades). But the former has almost never been true–the government regularyly uses the Social Security surplus as its personal piggy bank–and as the Baby Boomers start retiring, the latter will no longer be true, either. I’m no economist, but that seems like a disaster waiting to happen. When I say that the program will go “bankrupt,” what I mean is that the money coming into the system will no longer be sufficient to cover the payments going out, and the government will have to find some other way to cover the deficit–probably through a massive hike in Social Security taxes (which means an even smaller return on investment for people paying into the system right now, i.e. you and me).
Social Security is, as you point out, already the single largest line item in the federal budget. And as I said before, it’s an extraordinarily inefficient way to ensure financial security for seniors. Is it really worth paying that much money to keep it going? This debate started when you wondered what fat we could trim from the federal budget. I’d start with Social Security.
Ok then, Ben, but maybe you can understand why I thought you were saying that:
It’s a wasteful and unnecessary program that is spiralling towards bankruptcy, whether 51% of the population likes it or not.
[quote]My point was that literally every single program of reasonable size has a 51% constituency behind it. What do you expect a democracy to do? Not operate by majority rule?
Yeah, I expect exactly that, since our government is not a democracy. The founders disliked democracy for exactly this reason–sometimes the majority of the public doesn’t know what the hell it’s talking about.[/quote]
How is Social security inefficient? And technically, SS money used “for other purposes” tends to result in lower income taxes to offset - spending the SS surplus is actually how Bush managed to get the first tax cut through. The SS program could have been topped up through 2070 or whatever by Bush forgoing his tax cut, but nooooo.
And if “SS income doesn’t cover SS outlays” = bankruptcy, then the income tax system has been “bankrupt” since the 1930s. We ran an income tax surplus in exactly one year (1998, I think); the rest of the
“surplus” years were because we took excess SS taxes and rolled them over into making up for income tax deficits.
The reason we have a SS surplus, of course, is the Greenspan commission back in the 1980s recommended increasing SS taxes and using the money to pay down the deficit, so it’d be easier to transfer cash from income taxes to shore up the system. What actually happened is Bush cut income taxes by about the same amount, so we’re going to have to raise income taxes (for a while; you just have to deal with the Boomer demographic “bubble”) just as much as before.
I didn’t ask what we should remove; I asked what possibly is unpopular enough to get rid of. No one’s suggested anything.
Spending the money was a double winner for Bush. He wants Social Security ailing or bankrupt to push through a privatization with sweetheart deals for major contributors, and wanted the tax cut for the obvious reasons.