Michael Jackson TalkRadio Content

he problem with social security is real and the solution will, of necessity, be bipartisan. Social Security is not in crisis. Today's elderly aren't at risk under the present system, but some thirty years from now, the proportion of older Americans will have grown considerably, vis-a-vis younger Americans, and that would mean that if the present system is not altered somewhat, the

benefits they receive would have to be reduced. That statement is based on actuarial facts as the money available would be insufficient to pay the recipients at today's levels.
Which leads me to a conversation I recorded for broadcast with the Clinton era associate Social Security administrator, who just happens to be the grandson of the man who invented the amazingly successful program, President F.D.R... James Roosevelt Jr. He objects most vocally to President Bush praising Franklin D. Roosevelt as if they were in cahoots and accord on the Bush proposal to allow workers to divert some of their payroll taxes into a privately held reserve. This money to be invested as the owners see fit. Attorney Roosevelt said "The president must take his privatization scheme off the table." He is convinced that his grandfather would have been appalled by the idea. A line the president uses over and over as he addresses audiences across the country is "The present pay-as-you-go system is going broke." It isn't.
Social Security is so huge. The single largest program of the American government. This year alone it will pay out some 500 billion dollars - almost a quarter of all of Washington's spending. It also pays benefits to disabled workers, spouses and children of retired workers and the survivors of deceased workers.
In the president's recent radio address he said "we must provide a better and stronger system for young workers... that is why I have proposed allowing younger Americans to place some of their payroll taxes in voluntary retirement accounts." His proposals do nothing to support, save or help Social Security.
Most of the fuss about social security can be summed up in just a couple of words; aging population. In the near future the baby boomers will be trading paychecks for social security payments. In fact between the year 2000 and 2050 it is projected that the 65-plus population will have more than doubled from 35 million to 87 million. So the number of retirees will much faster than will the number of young people in the workforce. And money from payroll taxes of the current workforce is what's used by the government to pay the benefits of today's recipients. As the editor in chief of US News put it in his most recent editorial, "The Bush administration and the Republican Party seem to have lost all capacity for financial self-control, turning their backs on the GOP's historical record of responsible fiscal management." The word's of Mortimer Zuckerman. How accurate he is when applied to both the president's determination to make his tax cuts permanent and the costs of privatizing Social Security ($1.5 trillion in the first decade and minimally 3.5 trillion dollars in the second).
Democrats should not cooperate with the White House and the GOP congressional majority as long as the president continues to push his plan for private accounts.

Social Insecurity