The State of Confusion

Personal note: The lateness of this note (which I had intended to post over the weekend) is due, in part, to the fact that my computer was taken over by various adware, viruses, several trojan horses, and other software intended to track my usage of the 'net (or worse). While the following post was written well in advance of this event - and needs to be published - never fear that at some point in the near future I will comment about the folks that write and propagate such code. Let's just say that I rate the current administration and its actions as nearly saintly compared to these leeches.........

*************************************************************************

This past week, I watched the “State of the Union” address in order to get some idea what the “mandates“ are that will be addressed by this lame duck president. Most of what he had to say either conveyed nothing of meaning to me personally (something common to most of these addresses by any president of any stripe) or left me feeling angry and almost violated. More on that in a minute. There were, I have to admit, two points made within the address with which I do agree:

- Social Security, as it is currently structured and managed, is destined to fail some day, and

- We need to support our troops around the world in whatever ways possible.

Social Security cannot support itself with population demographics being what they are. As has been laid out quite succinctly by many people, when this entitlement was first conceived and enacted, there were many workers supporting each retiree, and the system could easily sustain itself. However, as we have improved our standard of living and developed medicinal treatments to prolong life, this balance is slowly but inexorably shifting to fewer workers per retiree.

So, one of three things must happen - 1) current and future workers must pay more in taxes in order to keep benefits at parity with past generations; 2) current and future retirees must accept lower benefits as fewer workers supporting them means less money in the pool, or 3) the government must step in with supplemental benefits.

None of these is easy or painless. They all require someone with a backbone to suggest and carry them out. We have perhaps one solid backbone in the Executive and Legislative branches combined.

So this bold new initiative to save Social Security is laid on the table. Going beyond the quite proper assumptions made above about the system as it stands, one key assertion was made to support taking bold action now - timing of the failure of the system. It was claimed that the system will fail within 13 years if nothing is done. No one - not one opinion I have read nor the quick “back of the envelope” calculation I made - agrees with, nor comes anywhere near this short a time. It’s bunk, intending to scare folks into talking about a fix, plain and simple.
But perhaps the single biggest thing that I saw in this whole conversation, and which the mainstream media has conspicuously stayed away from, is the question of benefits for those 55 and above. Pandering of this magnitude is rarely seen in politics these days - “For those 55 and over, there will be no reduction of benefits” (or something very close to that). Why not change benefits for those already in the AARP generation? Wouldn’t the future value of today’s savings have a huge impact?

I’ll tell you why - because the AARP generation forms a key constituency of the Conservative Right, and they do mobilize and get out the vote.

You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Another underlying assumption not discussed is that Social Security provides a living income for those that really on it. It may, but it’s a pretty dismal standard of living by most any measure. To live in a way that we are accustomed to in our retirement years, supplemental income from other investments or assets is required.

Which brings me to the subject of initiatives like the IRA and plans like 401ks. Weren’t these sold, when they were first proposed, at least in part on the assumption that Social Security cannot and would not provide for a living wage for those of us retiring 20, 30, or more years out? Those of us who are fiscally responsible enough to plan for the reductions of benefits from Social Security (if not outright failure) are not considered in the administration’s calculations. The math’s too complicated - if not too complicated to figure out, then too complicated to try to communicate.

Which brings me around to what I see as the real reason this whole discussion was started at the beginning of the second term of this president’s administration - it’s a diversion to keep us thinking about a domestic-policy issue, while the case for war against yet another “up and coming terrorist country” in the War on Terror is made.

Think I’m kidding? Even CNN picked up on that, reporting on Condi Rice’s statements about invading Iran. I pray that this administration is not so arrogant as to think that our “success” in Iraq will be as “easily” achieved in other Arab countries desperately in need of “liberation”.

Which now brings me back to my second point of agreement with the address - we need to support our troops. This second invasion of Iraq was based on the premise that weapons of mass destruction were under development and nearly ready for deployment. We now know, through no less than the administration’s own admissions, that there never were any WMD. Let’s finish the work in Iraq, get them stabilized and self-governing, and get out.

Then, let’s not do this again. Let’s not send our young men and women into war based on phantoms or, perhaps, for some quiet personal agenda. These are people we are talking about - not pawns in some global chess game for power through the currencies of oil and money.
True leaders lead by doing what’s best for the USA, not what’s best for them through their personal investments and holdings. Spending tens (and soon to be hundreds) of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of lives perpetuating this country’s needs on the oil economy seems self-serving.

What if we spent that money on research into alternative fuels? Better photovoltaic conversion rates for solar power? Better fuel efficiency for our vehicles? Better building techniques for our homes that increase insulative value?

What if, indeed.