I just happened to overhear the roundtable on This Week on ABC.
David Brooks has no idea what an average human's life is like. I say this because of his justifications for uncreating Social Security: that it's a "New Deal" program, and most people can afford to fund their own retirement.
How many of you can fund your own retirement? Myopia of the elites is a problem with everyone's elite.
And George Will said (in a way which leaves me unclear whether he shares the position or is merely reporting it) that the argument for this uncreation will be that it helps poor folks save, gives them a vested interest in the economy and is a good idea even if Social Security is not going broke.
I think we should reconsider the urgency with which this is being pursued.
First, let's look at the official figures on when, barring any change, Social Security is projected to become insolvent.
The maximum projected trust fund ratios for the OASI, DI, and combined funds appear in table II.D1. The year in which the maximum projected trust fund ratio is attained and the year in which the assets are projected to be exhausted are shown as well.
| OASI | DI | OASDI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum trust fund ratio (percent) | 500 | 226 | 448 | |
| Year attained | 2015 | 2006 | 2015 | |
| Year of trust fund exhaustion | 2044 | 2029 | 2042 | |
Some 38 years before it all comes to a head.
Now, we know trying to project that far out is like trying to calculate where the tornado caused by the flap of a butterfly's wing in China will manifest. Still, precision isn't necessary to see that at some point there will be a problem. How one chooses to resolve the problem depends on how one sees its nature, and the evidence of that will be the actions you take…not the message you send.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
P6, very fine post and I pretty much agree with you: some sure things need to remain sure things despite the temptation to "improve them" by making them less certain.