End Social Security

As I read Bush's state of the union speech, I thought about social security. Here are some thoughts.

An obligation?
Social security has an implied commitment between generations. However,I don't feel responsible for somebody else's granparents, only my own family and others that I care about. I am willing to take care of my grandparents and my parents when they grow older, but I don't feel the same for total strangers. If I wanted to help out, I would freely donate to an organization that helped take care of older people. I'm sure the AARP could help me find such an organization.

Conversely, I don't expect money from total strangers to take care of me when I grow older. I will rely on my own retirement money or on my family. Hopefully, I will rely on my own money. As far as social security goes, I view it as another tax. I don't feel vested in it. Nobody asked me if I wanted to take part in this system. And if they did, I would politely say no because I feel that social security contributes to an entitlement mentality in America. Too many Americans focus on what is owed them and not enough on what their own responsibility is. I feel that my own responsibility is to take care of my own retirement and not depend on "daddy government" to take care of me.

Pre-Social Security
Social Security was created during the Great Depression. What did people do for retirement before then? It seems that they worked into their old age or relied on family. See here. Would we be able to do that today? Were older people healthier before the depression? Were families wealthier back then?

Generation Xers don't believe in it.
In a survey taken in 1994, more people aged 18-34 believed in UFOs than that social security will exist when they retire. See here, "UFO vs. Social Security."
Yet, politicians on both sides of the aisle are promoting their agendas under the theory that they are going to help the younger workers. The Bush Administration. Democrats The younger workers can see the writing on the wall and don't believe what anybody says. I have taken an informal survey of people my own age and virtually nobody feels that they will receive social security under the current program. Oddly enough, they don't believe that they will receive money under Bush's program, either. In fairness, people did mention that they might have a better chance under Bush's proposal, but that they weren't relying on it. Those that have thought about it are definitely not relying on social security. People may say that my sample group is ill-informed and that even if we do nothing, social security will pay 70% of benefits in future. I would respond that the baby boomers haven't retired yet, a lot could happen between now and when those projections apply, and that the only thing that is a sure thing is that the federal government will continue to spend money it doesn't have. Did projections made 35 years ago hold true today?

Social Security has long-range problems
Social security is a pay as you go program. The money that workers contribute today, go to pay retirees today. In 1950 the ratio of workers to beneficiary was 16-1, today it is 3.3-1 and in the future it will be 2-1. Figures taken from the social security webpage. See here. Social security has a surplus of almost 1.7 Trillion in the form of bonds from the treasury department. See here at the bottom of the page under "assets." Currently they generate a lot of interest. That implies that some of those bonds are being redeemed today. But it seems that taxes have to be raised when the surplus is used in the future. More about the social security trust fund.

So, I don't feel an obligation to pay into social security, many of the younger generation don't expect to get anything out of social security, and there may be some money difficulties with the surplus. For those reasons, I think we should END SOCIAL SECURITY. Let's do away with it. The extra money could go back into the economy, either through purchasing goods or investment.

Everyone should get what has been promised them.
I'm not talking about cutting benefits for the current senior citizens in this country. They have paid into a system their whole lives and they will reap more than they sowed. They bought into the program and should get what was promised them. However, I think there is a unique opportunity to end it now. The government could set an age limit like 40 or 50 and say everyone below has to pay in at the current rate, but once a certain reserve is met, then you get back that 6% and the government could strongly encourage you to invest it for your old age. What you decide to do with the money would be your choice and you would have to live with the consequences.

I have not mentioned nor addressed the other parts of social security such as the disability or survivors' benefits. I have nothing new to add about how to manage those programs. I am talking strictly about the retirement portion here.

Conclusion
The attitude of the younger generation provides an opportunity to phase out social security. This will free up money and shift responsibility for retirement from the government to individuals and families. The 6% that workers now contribute will create a giant pool of money. That money could go to a variety of purposes. Maybe that money will become a new source of investment capital. Maybe people will go out and spend it on worthless consumer electronics. Maybe people will store it under the couch. I don't know. But I do know that right now I don't believe that social security will be around for me and if I can get that 6% of my paycheck right now, I am more than happy to take care of my own retirement, thank you.

Washington vs. Bush

George Washington respected and deferred to civilian jurisdiction while he was the commanding general of the continental army. Here are some examples of his deference.

1) Deserters from the army.
While Washington had near-dictatorial powers in 1776 and 1777, he only prosecuted deserters in eastern Pennslyvania and not in New Jersey. The difference? At the time New Jersey had a working government, eastern Pennslyvania did not. Washington trusted the civilian courts to prosecute the deserters. George Washington and American Constitutionalism. Glenn A Phelps. Page 39. Hereafter referred to as Washington. See here.

2) Deference of the Military to Civil Authority
Washington handed over his officers to civilian courts even when he thought the charges were bogus. Washington pages 37-38. A letter to a governor. Here is one to a brigadier general directing him to cooperate with civilian authorities.

4) Title with letter from Howe
British General Howe sent Washignton a letter in 1776 with overtures of peace. Washington refused the first two letters because they did not acknowledge his congressional title of general. He directed that all offers of peace had to be directed to Congress. Washington pages 36-37. Writings that detail the incident. (look on page 274)

These episodes show that Washington only used his power as general when he needed to. Otherwise he deferred to congress. Keep in mind that this is the same congress that couldn't provide him with enough supplies to feed and clothe his army. Unfortunately, this example has not been followed by the Bush administration.

Ways that Bush Administration has expanded Military Authority
1) Jose Padilla
The Bush administratction claims that since we are at war with terrorism, the president can declare whoever he wants an "enemy combatant" and hold them indefinitely and that there should not be any court review of the case. Don't believe me? Look at the links below. What the Cato Institute thinks, Court documents, good summary article with latest ruling

2)The Defense Department now has spies.
See here. Isn't this the area of the CIA, a civilian agency? I have been told that spying came out of the military, but the article talks about how a new special force was created after September 11th. Didn't we just rearrange the intelligence agencies to make them more effective? This seems to be an end run around a civilian agency.

People may argue that because Bush is a civilian commander-in-chief, that the comparison to a military commander is irrelevant. I disagree. My point is that under the Bush administration, the military is encroaching on civilian jurisdiction.

Summary
George Washington went out of his way to not usurp civilian jurisdiction by military authority. The Bush administration seems to usurp civilian jurisdiction at every chance they get. We should follow the course of Washington.