The Social Security program was a highlighted issue throughout the 1999 presidential campaign. George Bush claimed that the program was going broke and it needed restructuring Al Gore rejected Bush’s state, and for evidence of his position he pointed to the Social Security ‘lockbox’ in Washington. History, before 1999 and since, has proved that Bush was right – the Key lock box is a myth.
Gore did not specifically say that Washington’s ‘lockbox’ was comprised of cash and negotiable securities, which may be used to make pension payments if payroll tax income was not sufficient to meet requirements. But that’s obviously the meaning he was trying to convey, and it is the meaning that too many citizens, then and now, think. This is one of the great political lies of the twentieth century because it provided false comfort to countless individuals, and it effectively road-blocked attempts to alter the way the plan is funded. This rest and the effective historical cost by Democrats, that Republicans intend to junk Social Security and keep hungry seniors behind, were powerful political tools in 1999 that reduced the legitimate focus on the troubled program’s framework that Bush was trying to develop. The consequence is that the plan remained expensively untended during Bush’s first term, and when, in his second term, he tried to resurrect the issue again, he failed to gain the necessary support due to the seductive power of the great lie.
In small, Democrats have consistently succeeded in scaring the pants from seniors by demonizing Republicans and by lying concerning the nature of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, which amounts to nothing more than the usual pack of IOU’s – as useful as an offer by your Uncle Ned, who has no money, to pay all your charges. This is simply not a make-believe problem expressing it’s not a political ruse and wanting to repair it is not an act of cruelty. In 1940, when Social Security was just a few years of age, the percentage of employees per retiree was 159/1 it dropped to 17/1 in 1950 5/1 in 1960 4/1 in 1970, and it was 3/1 in 2009. Payroll tax revenue in the 1950s wasn’t always enough to cover requirements it happened again in the 1960s and 1970s. Temporary treatments (increasing the payroll tax) were applied till, in the 1980s, President Reagan prepared a more comprehensive solution that worked for three decades. But now the devil is back to claim his due. And is it not finally evident to all that a reasonable payroll tax isn’t the proper funding mechanism for the program? Is it not obvious that, to hold the noble idea alive, fundamental restructuring is needed?
The tax base must be broadened, or the program must be changed – less than a handful of workers cannot continue to help the entire senior people, that is growing geometrically. Based on the N.Y. This past year moments (March 24, 2010), payroll tax income was less than pension costs. Which means the Rubicon has been crossed – earlier than expected. Weakness was settled of normal revenues in 2010 it still is failures are increasing. , Republicans once more draw awareness of a simple fact: Apart from its worthiness as a social program, which nobody disputes, the U.S Today. Social Security is afforded by cannot as it is currently organized. But Democrats fight sensible change, and they have resurrected the same old distinct defense: The ‘lockbox,’ they say, will keep the program solvent for another 20 or 30 years Republicans, they say, are yet again bent on destroying mom and dad’s pension – same old track different vocalists.