When they managed to stall Social Security reform last year? After all, the problem didn't need fixing!
Project on Social Security ChoiceLooks like things aren't as good as they thought they were.When President Bush mentioned, during this year's state of the union address that Congress had failed to do anything to fix Social Security's looming financial problems, Democrats jumped up and cheered. This week they received a rebuke in the form of the latest report from the system's nonpartisan trustees.
Is Social Security as bad off as latest report indicates? - MarketWatchIt would be hard to argue there's NOT a problem of some sort - and with a problem like this is eems to me that the sooner you actually deal with it, the better off you're going to be.Now, the trustees are saying the Medicare hospital trust fund will become insolvent in 2018, two years earlier than predicted in 2005, and the Social Security trust fund will run out of reserves in 2040, one year earlier than predicted a year ago.
Not surprising, pundits and others are speaking their minds about the so-called crisis and the possible solutions to fixing Social Security and Medicare, the need for which seems to grow larger and larger with each passing year. Is there a problem or not? And if so what are the solutions?
But there's a decided tendency in our political class to look at a problem, look at when the problem will hit (2018, 2040) and go "Eh, I'll be long out of office with a pension by then. Why should I do anything about it aside from the usual handwaving?"
And so the problem doesn't get solved, or even addressed seriously until the folks who'll be directly affected by the lack of a solution (IE the politicians who'll be in office when this hits) realized they have to do Something NOW. And the solution will be hideously expensive and make everyone unhappy.
But for now? Everything's fine. Go back to your TV. Nothing to worry about - just move along. The politicians know what's best for you. Trust them... If they say it's okay, then it must be - because they wouldn't use something as important as Social Security for partisan advantage, now would they?
J.
Comments (4)
How true.
I'm willing to bet the predicted date continues to move up on both.
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) | May 11, 2006 4:08 AM
Posted on May 11, 2006 04:08
It most likely will. In 2016 I should be able to tap my Reserve pension - and five years after that I hope to hit up Social Security. Ah, well. There's always WalMart.
J.
Posted by JLawson | May 11, 2006 7:58 AM
Posted on May 11, 2006 07:58
You got me thinking Jerry.
I recall Hillary's face, most of all during that SOTU.
The unconcealed malicious, vindictive look of twisted joy was really despicable.
And then President Bush's dignified look, etched with sorrow in contrast, really showed grace under fire.
Ironically, the only thing the Donks "won" was hurting America's children and grandchildren,
like some trophy to be proud of.
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) | May 11, 2006 9:08 AM
Posted on May 11, 2006 09:08
They can be very short-sighted at times. And when you get a politician who plans for the long term, they delight in hamstringing anything he might propose. Immediate gain, immediate power is everything - long-term? Who cares what happens after they're out of office?
J.
Posted by JLawson | May 11, 2006 12:45 PM
Posted on May 11, 2006 12:45