tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161781017528873219.post3549693193771501937..comments2023-10-17T04:51:04.961-07:00Comments on Telemachus: 'You Might Be A Small Government Conservative If You....Frank Hillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948885430465501408noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161781017528873219.post-60276905439555425572012-01-18T09:54:29.368-08:002012-01-18T09:54:29.368-08:00I'll do you one better. Index the age to offi...I'll do you one better. Index the age to official life expectancy. Maybe not <i>above</i> life expectancy, like FDR originally set it - but indexed so that it is no longer (as much of) a demographic time bomb.<br /><br />d(^_^)b<br />http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/<br />“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”LibertyAtStakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02352456337421726385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161781017528873219.post-3765363237915524072012-01-17T09:47:51.083-08:002012-01-17T09:47:51.083-08:00See, I kinda disagree with the characterization. Y...See, I kinda disagree with the characterization. You can certainly argue that, as a pyramid/Ponzi scheme, your individual contributions to SS are gone, and you have no expectation of any return whatsoever. However, you can also argue that the government has a promised obligation to pay you some of it back (part of the so-called "unfunded liabilities" part of the national debt).<br /><br />All my proposal/system would do is shift the "unrealized" liability into a realized one, which could then be properly accounted for on the government ledger, not haggled or debated over (because it would be a specific, objective amount, not subject to manipulation), and ultimately dealt with. Part of the problem with fixing SS is that it's hard to make the convincing case to intentionally-ignorant people that it's broken; my system would not only "fix" it (ie: prevent the government's debt obligation from increasing in the future), but make the assumed debt to-date blindingly obvious to all parties.<br /><br />The beauty of my plan for SS, unlike a lot of my other idealistic notions, is that it actually seems fairly feasible to do. After all, it doesn't change the status-quo that much, doesn't require cutting spending (which, as we know, makes any plan a non-starter these days), and barely includes any political pain at all. The only "downside" is an increase in the on-paper debt, to cover the implied existing debt; as we know, adding trillions to the debt is "no big deal" recently, and Congress could authorize the entire SS "adjustment" debt increase separate from the normal debt ceiling to make it more palatable (and if it's worded right, seem like the simple accounting change it really is). It would really be a win for everyone: Congress, the people, and small government (in the sense that it takes arbitrary manipulation power away from the government).<br /><br />Of course, as all good plans, I don't see any way our government could/would actually do it, but as my ideas go, I think it's one of my better ones.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05587036619182019599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161781017528873219.post-23352274241408537332012-01-17T05:55:51.360-08:002012-01-17T05:55:51.360-08:00there is simply zero way to ever 'get back'...there is simply zero way to ever 'get back' any of the money anyone has paid into SS. That is a 'sunk cost' in the strictest definition of the words. it is gone, fini, zippo-chango gone....so everyone should just stop dreaming about getting anything 'back' from past FICA taxes paid.<br /><br />I agree that a move to a Chilean-type system has to start today. It is the only fair way to deal with our children whom we have already saddled with massive debt and soon-to-be explosive interest payments when interest rates even return to some sort of normal rates in a couple of years when the economy finally recovers.<br /><br />But those of us in the late Baby Boom generation....we are sort of screwed...we have paid into a system that we might not get what we thought was coming to us<br /><br />it is our fault for not having gotten the political forces aligned to change it sooner, although God knows I and many others i worked with in DC for many years have tried.Frank Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948885430465501408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161781017528873219.post-70560836400409627172012-01-16T17:09:41.582-08:002012-01-16T17:09:41.582-08:00Raising the eligibility age for entitlement progra...Raising the eligibility age for entitlement programs is a bandaid on a gaping wound, at best. I'd be in favor of raising the limits, nominally, but the whole idea of an arbitrarily adjusted entitlement program based on a large "obfuscated" tax and built as a pyramid scheme is an affront to the whole idea of small government, regardless of how you fiddle with the numbers.<br /><br />I would <i>much</i> rather see a conversion, at least for social security, from the current system to one which tracked individual contributions, and gave you your money back (with appropriate interest based on real, ie 1980's calculation, inflation) when you choose retire, as <a href="http://itsjustmyopinionicouldbewrong.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-to-fix-social-security.html" rel="nofollow">I've blogged about previously</a>. In fact, under my system, the government wouldn't even need to set a specific retirement age, as your monthly benefit would be determined based on you accumulated retirement savings, and the number of months remaining in your average life expectancy; the minimum could be age 50, and the system still works fine (ie: no deficit for the government forever).<br /><br />I have to disagree with your premise, though: nothing about supporting our current Social Security or Medicare system, in their current forms, says "small government conservative" to me. Making a big government program less fiscally irresponsible doesn't make it fundamentally any better, at least in my opinion.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05587036619182019599noreply@blogger.com