Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 23, 2005)
Commentary L A CKA MA Priîlt February 23, 2005 • f FACE OFF: DO WE NEED SOCIAL S ecurity reform ? Social Security needs help; proposed plan provides new potential Bush's plan for Social Security would cause more harm than good Innon Armstead Ben Maras fiinentary Editor The Clackamas Print ith the coming generation of retiring baby boomers, Social Security funds are on their way to nonexistence, leaving college students with the responsibility to pay almost twice their fair share into Social Security vhat they put in back out; this problem undeniably calls for social secu- I ¡mocrats argue that Social Security is in no need of change, the fact •e running out for Social Security is indisputable. For example, former 11 Clinton spoke to the Democratic Leadership Committee on Dec. 3, social security reform. left office,” he said,* there was enough money to keep Social Security 053, enough money to keep Medicare going until 2027, through half the aby don’t broke, know we what the have latest are going show the boomers. system is I nearly will to numbers borrow funds either to way to ’t be good. ” private investment accounts, we have a chance to steer a new l retirees. With to for downplay the fact there is a problem Security the retirement of that future generations and to with pay our back Social accrued debts, y Democrats want to leave Social own Security as it is, yet the real issues will individuals will be paying for their retirement. r. Suppose we developed “Leave Social Security As It Is problem Plan.” Once is no perfect plan for Social a Security, but there is a serious with i passed, promised retirement by security 16 percent for system and it must be attended benefits to; Bush would ’s plan be for cut social reform percent for today ’s 20-year-olds and 35 promises percent for today ’s real ear-olds, assets of 29 ownership rather than the undependable of the cur- here is a new hot-button issue in the media, as well as a new topic of debate among Washington insiders: Social Security, and namely the privatization thereof. While many may see this as the only way to fix an apparently broken system, in actuality it is a dangerous —and far too drastic—innovation. First off, a rundown of the President’s idea for Social Security reform: As it stands now, a certain percentage of each worker’s paycheck is taken out in the form of a Social Security tax. This money, rather than being set aside, is used to pay for the current generation of retirees. So far so good, right? Right. Now the problem: with the “baby-boomer” generation getting ready to retire, coupled with advances in medical technology extending life expectancies, it puts a larger burden on the corresponding generation of workers. Because of this, Bush “the 43rd” has declared a new proposal to fix the Social Security “crisis.” Among other things, one of the proposal’s high lights is to allow the creation of private savings accounts, which workers would pay a certain amount of money into (to be accompanied by, and correspond to, a tax cut) to be used when they retire. So, for example, if 10 percent of someone’s wages are now taken our for Social Security tax, after Bush’s proposal, only five percent would be taken out; the other five percent would be funneled into their private savings account. What would be done with this money? The Bush administration sug gests it be invested in the stock market. I ask this: would it be consid ered sound financial advice for a family, down on their luck, to use their money to bet at a craps table? Probably not. It’s fine in theory, until we understand that the Social Security program was created, as a result of the Great Depression, as a security net for Americans to fall back on during . their “Golden Years.” Is this something we should be tinkering with? Another concern is in the arithmetic. If the 10 percent that a worker is paying now is being used to pay for the retirees who are retiring now, what would happen when this cut is implemented? Now five percent is supposed to cover where 10 percent was before? At this point the government is faced with one of two options: either cut benefits to retirees or get money to make up for it. The prior is barely an option, and would be complete political suicide, so that leaves them with a negative balance, and where does that money come from? It will be the workers who have to make up for it by having their programs cut or paying more in their taxes. So while it may be that privatizing Social Security would give us the most freedom, we must ask ourselves if this is a freedom that we really want. There is nothing wrong with admitting that we cannot shoulder the burden for something alone, and we should fall back on a government run system designed to help people in our exact situation. Another way to look at it: while this freedom may allow «us the opportunity to improve our futures, it also gives us the opportunity to screw it up. T would retirement benefits be cut, payroll taxes would have to go up by lercent in 2041. No congressman would go rushing to sign this bill, yet rill be the same without reform. d Social Security reform a daunting issue to comprehend, yet the prin- dly quite basic. First of all, Social Security’s promised benefits are rising ts revenues, which means we are going to have great difficulty paying ie President’s commitment to reform Social Security will allow younger ivest a portion of their taxes into personal retirement. retirement accounts would be voluntary and the money would go into a and stock funds that would have the opportunity to earn a higher rate in the current system could ever provide. For example, a young per ns an average of $35,000 per year over his or her lifetime would have arty $250,000 saved in his or her account upon retirement. This would provide a pplement to a worker’s traditional Social Security check, or to pass on to his or Hldren. k common complaint about this new form of Social Security is that it requires tial borrowing because part of the taxes which did go into the existing system iuld be taken to pay for the younger generation’s private accounts instead of new ■s. |----------- — IE L A C K A MA Sprint ■600 S. Molalla Ave. Eregon City, OR 97045 ■03) 657-6958 ex. 2309 Hhe C lackamas Print is a weekly M student publication and is distributed every Wednesday except finals week. E ditor - in -C hief : Isaiah Creel C opy E ditor : James Tombe N ews E ditor : Ben Maras C ommentary E ditor : Shannon Arguello, Stephen Bostwick, A d M anager : Ben Holm D esign E ditor : Michaele Cooper Myque Obiero, Gregg Radspinner, Ryan Richards, S taff W riters : Frank Jordan, Cassie Mafhieson, Joe Piazzisi, Amanda Polopolus, Jacob Ray, Jadon Triplett, Katie Wilson, Laura Armstead Cameron, Christa Danielson, F eature E ditor : Karlin Johnson S ports C o -E dtiors : Mike McCormack Jeremy Freid, Mike Guidice, Jason Pirtle, Amy Sandelt, Kyle Slate, & Jeff Sorensen Elizabeth Tobey, Norma Martinez A&E E ditor : Hilliary Ferguson P roduction A ssistants : Jesse P hoto E ditor : Joel Gaynor Monica Gizowski, Madeleine Atwood P hotographers : Brie Daykin, Angela Gerhart, Stephen Hayes A dvisor : Linda Vogt D epartment A ssistant : Pat Lichen G oals : The C lackamas Print aims to report the news in an honest, unbiased, profes sional manner. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the student body, college administration, its fac ulty or The Print. E-mail com ments to chiefed@clackamas. edu.
