Sexxxy Tiiiiiime: Making Social Security the most sought after domestic policy

When someone asks me to describe my outlook on the future of social security as it stands now, you could probably liken my response to that of the people who had to avert their eyes from Sacha Baron Cohen riding a jet ski in a red thong to the premiere of his movie in Amsterdam a few days ago.

Yeah, that's not good.

Social Security might not be the hottest issue being discussed right now, but it is an issue that I feel is really REALLY important for people, especially young people, to pay attention to. And, you know what? We need to sexy it up a little! Buy it a hot little teddy, tell it that it's pretty every now and then, you know...make sure that it becomes something worth caring about, because, ultimately, it can and will have serious long term impacts on every single American citizen. 

Disclaimer: when I say "Social Security," I am referring almost exclusively to the benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death, which are the four major areas of payout, and those most commonly found in private-sector pension plans. Other issues that could fall under the larger umbrella of the original Social Security Act include welfare and unemployment benefits, which are a whooooole different ball game, and definitely best left to another blog. 

Social Security was implemented in a time very similar to the one we're facing now. The economy was in the crapper, we had a progressive "unifier" as the president, and there were major changes being made the system of government. It was implemented so that the a sector of the population that was particularly financially vulnerable would have a ray of hope during dark times. 

Today though, this ray is very visible. Here's the problem: We. Can't. Afford. It. 

When Social Security was first implemented -- it was signed into law in 1935, the first lump-sum payments were made in 1937, and the first monthly payments began in 1940 -- the average life expectancy at birth was 62.9 years of age. So basically to collect the monthly benefits provided by Social Security, you had to outlive the expectancy by 2.1 years to be able to collect. That's not a whole lot, and sure, it happened often, but that just means that people weren't collecting for too long before they popped off, too. Now, you can still collect at 65, but the average life expectancy (as of 2005) was 77.8 years! That means that on average, people will be collecting for over 12 years before they start to die off! That's a HUGE difference from the system that worked so well to ensure economic viability to the most vulnerable sector of the population in 1940.

Another interesting fact: In 1940, when the first monthly payments began to arrive, there were about 160 people who were contributing to the fun for every one person drawing out of it. Basically, the Social Security fund was in the black, and it had no reason to believe that it would ever be in danger...it was flush! But then as the life expectancy and population increased hand in hand, we started seeing a little inkling of the problem that now faces us. As of 2005, there were three workers paying in to Social Security for every 1 person receiving benefits. 

4 years later we're facing even more of a crisis. The Baby Boomers are rapidly approaching the age at which they can start collecting benefits, and that should make us all very scared. You see, the sheer amount of baby boomers that will move from tax-paying workers to benefit-collecting retirees is enough to completely devastate the ration of 3:1. Estimates say that we will be having 1 worker paying in for ever 2 or 3 beneficiaries! Newsflash, that means that there will be more money going out than coming in. Suze Orman would say that we should stop living beyond our means. 

So what, you might say? Well, basically this means that all of the taxes "The Man" takes out of our already meager paychecks as college graduates in entry-level positions is not going into a giant fund, like it used to. Rather it is immediately being sent out across the country to those people who collect benefits.  In fact, by 2037 the fund is expected to be officially exhausted. I'll be 50, stil 15 years away from collecting the money I've paid in during my adult life. The only thing that will cover the payouts will be the taxes we are paying in, and that will only cover about 76% of the payouts in 2037. So then, forty years down the road, when we come of age to collect OUR checks, what money do you think will be left for us? Certainly not the same amount as we labored to put in over the years!

Ever heard the old saying, "you reap what you sow"? Well, in the case of Social Security, that's not always true. "That's not fair!" I can hear now, in the refrain so loved by the kids I babysit. You're right. It's NOT fair.

So what are you going to do about it?

That's my point. There needs to be something done about the current Social Security crisis we face in the United States. The program is falling down around our shoulders, but we just keep paying in, hoping that it will just take care of itself by the time it comes for use to collect from it. Doesn't it sound FAIR if we were able to collect exactly what we paid in, not a dime more, not a dime less? Isn't that EXACTLY reaping what you sow? Yes. It is. 

And that's what privatization is, bebez. It's taking what you pay in, putting it into an account for you, and then paying you from that account, and that account only, when it comes time for you to retire. And it's good for the government, too! The government would get to take the profits from these investment accounts make investments with them, and keep all of those profits. (Yes, there's a lot more that goes into the process, but do you want this to be a novel? Do your own research, my object is to get you to care.)

So if you want to get out as much as you put in, if you want to have something to retire on, and if you care whether the government will come to a complete financial standstill in the next 40 years, you should really take a closer look at the Social Security situation in the United States. This isn't the sexiest issue out there, but really, do you want to wait until you're ten years from retirement before you discover that there's nothing there for you? Something has to be done, and whether you're for privatization or for more government control (ugh, I hope not), you need to let your elected officials know that this is a pressing issue they need to address now, not later.

 

A little confused...

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by something:

Major news today is that Arlen Specter has switched political parties and now identifies as a Democrat. Speculation is that he just wants to make sure he wins in his state again next year. He was facing HEAVY competition in the primaries, and recent polls show that he was about 15% behind.

My question: did he even identify with the Republican Party?!?!?!?!?

Statistically speaking, Arlen Specter has the most liberal record of any Republican in Congress...BY A LOT. He votes with the Democrats more than 50% of the time (if I weren't in class right now I would have all sorts of stats to throw at you...give me an hour or two and I'll see what I can do to BLOW YOUR MIND haha).

So, basically, in summation, Arlen Specter has never really been a Republican. Just a shady career politician who sacrifices personal beliefs for votes. So, Democrats, you can keep him. I don't want him.

I think everyone should go take THIS QUIZ...it's interesting and well rounded!

(and that's the only time I'll ever say anything like that about something put out by the Center for American Progress)

PS - If anyone is wondering, I scored 102/400. That makes me 60 points more conservative that "Conservative Republicans," haha.

Futile Action

Shortly after class, an economics student approached his economics professor and said, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?"

The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you." The student agreed. 

At the agreed upon time the student showed up at the professor's house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool. They both went out back, and the professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can. The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then explained that they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool. The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?" The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper. 

The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough. However, after the sixth trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to fear that his economics professor had gone crazy. The student finally exclaimed, "All we're going is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over everything will be exactly as it was before, so all you've really accomplished is the destruction of what could have been a truly productive action!"

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile. "Congratulations! You now understand the stimulus bill!"

A little late...

Thank God that they left my little solo out!! Just some of the lovely YAF staffers wishing our supporters a Merry Christmas!!

Shhh, I'm going to tell you a secret...

I sent a card to postsecret the other day. I'm not sure how many people are aware of it, but postsecret is a blog where Frank, the guy who runs it, receives thousands of anonymous secrets on postcards in the mail, and every Sunday scans twenty into his blog for people to read and relate to. I'm pretty much obsessed with it, and log on every Sunday to see the new secrets. 

Since I doubt my secret will appear on the next posting (or really, any posting, it's not that good of a secret), I've decided that I want to share it with you all. It said, "even though I disagree with affirmative action, checking the box that says 'Hispanic' always seems like a good idea." 

It's true. On standardized tests and college applications (and now law school applications) I have always checked the little box that says "Hispanic," even though my skin is more olive than tan, I speak (mostly) English at home, and consider myself an American -- not that you can't be Hispanic and American at the same time. It's just that my dad is pretty much one of the whitest people you'll ever meet, and after so many years in this country my Guatemalan side of the family has assimilated fairly well. Yes, we still eat tamales at Christmas and grapes on New Year's Eve, but still...If someone had a gun to my head and told me I could only pick one, I would definitely say that I fit more into the "White (non-Hispanic)" category. 

(On a tangent, I never got why "white" had to be accompanied by "not hispanic" and not "non-Asian" or "non-African", but I digress.)

After I put this particular post card in the mail, I realized something. It's not that I don't believe in affirmative action. It's that I don't believe in race-based affirmative action. There's a HUGE difference, and I probably should have specified, but I didn't want to get all political on a 4"x6" postcard on its way to Germantown, PA. 

BUT, I have no problem getting all political here.

The thing is, I think it's completely RACIST for the government or educational institutions to assume that because you're black or hispanic you need a hand up over lesser-privileged white children. I mean, there ARE white kids who grow up on the wrong side of the tracks (or in Compton, whatever) who attend the same schools and get the same education as the minority students that are targeted, and yes, helped, by affirmative action. These are kids from broken homes, subjected to gang violence, growing up in the projects, who can barely read coming out of 10th grade, who are then looked at by colleges and dismissed in favor of a minority student who could quite possibly have a more privileged background just because of the color of their skin.

Um, I'm sorry, but isn't that, like, the definition of racism? Judging people by the color of their skin or where their family is from?

It's my personal belief that IF affirmative action is left in place, it needs to be radically and fundamentally overhauled to correct this oversight. Rather than giving these "boosts" to applicants because of their race, educational institutions and even employers should take into account socio-economic factors. Where you grow up and go to school can have as much affect on you as your skin color, in terms of education. Think about it. A black kid from Shaker Heights or Newport Beach, with parents that both have great jobs and can afford to live in good school districts, is way more likely to score well on standardized tests or do well in school, than a white kid from Compton or inner-city Cincinnati whose dad was never in the picture and whose mom has to work three shifts waiting tables to be able to afford basic necessities.

My roommate disagrees with me (no surprise there, she's an Asian American studies doctoral candidate who was a rabid Obama fan). She thinks that because whites were so oppressive for so long no white student could possibly deserve preference over any minority student. I think it's this kind of backward (racist) thinking that really is a stumbling block to race-relations in the first place. There are more factors in your life than the color of your skin or the country that your parents (or grandparents) called home. But people who fail to take that into account exclude a section of the population who are white but are truly underprivileged.

The thing is, even though I know that I've been blessed to go to great schools and have great teachers and a good home life, I still check that Hispanic box. I kind of feel guilty about it, too, so I don't do it all of the time. I just think it would be so great if we didn't have to put ourselves into a box based on what we looked like or our race/ethnicity. Don't you?

President Obama

This is really difficult to stomach.

God bless John McCain.

And Obama -- don't mess with my country.

At least we'll have a definite Republican revolution in four years. Pray that we can get through to then.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile