The Unrepentant Individual

...I must agree before I'll obey


February 28, 2005


A Fundamental Choice

I’ve blogged far too much about Social Security. But it’s an addiction. How we handle Social Security is probably, tied with the War on Terror, the most important long-term question that we as a country are facing right now. Some people have said there is no crisis. I think personally that if you look at the lies we’ve been told about Social Security, the crisis isn’t waiting for 2018 or 2042, it’s already started.

The real question is what we’re going to do about it. Demographics don’t lie, we’re not going to grow our economy out of this problem. So we’re faced with a couple of options. In all honesty, they boil down to three possible choices: increase revenue, decrease benefits, or scrap the system for something completely different.

1) Deny there’s a problem and hope American’s don’t revolt later: This, of course, is the current Democratic plan. And, it just might work. We’ll be forced to ever increase taxes, with the only alternative being drastic benefit cuts. After all, in 20 years when the demographics get really ugly, they’ll actually be able to legitimately claim that anyone trying to change the system is trying to kick Granny down the stairs. That is, if the Democrats are still around.

2) Modify it slightly: This is the easy solution. Changing benefit schedules, maybe a modification to the retirement age, etc. This is not going to cut it. It might delay the problems, but as life expectancy increases and birth rates decline, it will keep the program specifically at subsistence levels for eternity. Costs will remain high and benefits remain low, and that’s bad for both rich and poor.

3) Private Accounts: I’ve been slowly feeling a draft as I think more and more about this. If done properly, private accounts could be a tremendous wealth-generating machine. But I see two serious problems with this. First, the government is not known for doing ANYTHING properly. I keep bringing up references to government programs when I argue against socialized medicine, because the government doesn’t have feedback loops that business has to ensure efficiency. Knowing our government, any privatized Social Security system will be overburdened by administration costs, bureaucratic red tape and over-regulation, lack of choice, and political meddling. If they can’t do it right, it’s worse than doing nothing at all. Second, this will bring a MAJOR influx of federally controlled money into the market. With federal money comes federal regulation, and federal regulation of the market is the Democrat’s wet dream. Could the government ruin both Social Security and the stock market? And if government money is used without proper diversification, will its effect distort the market too much? Americans are becoming more and more investment-savvy on their own, perhaps we should keep this out of the federal purview? As a libertarian, I can no longer support what would be one of the greatest federal expansion of authority in our time.

4) Means-testing: I think this may be the best option that we have. I mentioned that we’re forced either increasing revenue or decreasing benefits. Increasing revenue means increasing taxes. That’s not a problem to the class-warfare left, especially since the first thing to go will be the payroll tax salary cap. The problem, however, lies with stealing the money that upper-income earners are now investing to pay now-rich retired people. Let’s cut, or avoid increasing, payroll taxes now and not pay rich people later. Social Security is an insurance program. If we’re going to insure against something, let’s insure against poverty, not old age. According to the AARP, Social Security keeps about 48% of the elderly out of poverty. So if you means-test the program, you can save over half the cost. It avoids the problem of increased taxes dragging on the economy, and could even reduce the tax burden, spurring some added economic growth, and allowing people to save for their own retirement. In addition, if we increased the retirement age slightly for the guaranteed benefit to account for increased life expectancy and improved senior health, we could do even better. Assuming we stick with this option, we may even be able to increase the benefit to old folks facing poverty, and ensure that their retirement is better than the mere subsistence-level stipend they currently receive.

No matter what we do, someone has to get the short end of the stick to fix this problem. With option 1, future workers get the short end. They’re the engine of our economy, and increasing their taxes worsen their ability to invest, hurting themselves and the general economy. Option 2 screws everyone equally, and does nothing to improve the situation. Option 3 screws the economy by giving the government too much of a hand. Option 4 screws the old rich folks. The one group that legitimately does not need the money would cease to get it. Young workers who don’t believe they’ll ever get Social Security aren’t as angry, and might save a little in taxes, and the left always loves taking away from the rich, so they shouldn’t have a problem with it either. All parties are served, except the group that doesn’t need it. Sounds like a winner to me!

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 9:14 pm || Permalink || Comments (66) || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized



Bringing it all Together

Lebanese Government Resigns Amid Protests

Egypt moves to hold free elections

Saudis enthusiastic about historic elections

Palestinian Cabinet excludes Arafat’s cadre

Of course, it is possible this would have happened without the US going into Afghanistan and Iraq, but I can’t say it’s all that likely.

I’m just sayin’…

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:05 am || Permalink || Comments (3) || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized



In Other News, Winter is Cold

Personal Incomes See Biggest Dip in Decade

What a headline. That sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it… They go on to say:

Personal incomes which had been bolstered by a large stock dividend payment in December plunged 2.3 percent in January, the sharpest decline in more than a decade. Consumer spending was flat, the government reported Monday.

The Commerce Department said the sharp January drop in incomes followed a record 3.7 percent jump in incomes in December with both months heavily influenced by a $3 per share dividend payment that computer software giant Microsoft made on Dec. 2.

Without the huge $32 billion dividend payment by Microsoft, personal incomes would have shown steadier gains of 0.6 percent in December and 0.5 percent in January.

So basically what they’re saying is, if I get a big bonus or something at work, and the next month my raise kicks in but my check is smaller than my bonus, that’s a huge hit to my personal income, right? Because that’s what happens. Income is at least a percent higher than it was in November, and a one-time bonus in December made the month-to-month number look bad. If I can see “personal income reductions” like that, I’ll take it any time I can get it.

There’s a big difference between factual accuracy and truthfulness. It’s a line Michael Moore doesn’t seem to understand, and whoever wrote this headline has the same problem. What they said is true, month-to-month numbers dropped. But the truth of the numbers shows that the economy is improving each month, and the month-to-month only looks bad because December was so good.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 8:58 am || Permalink || Comments Off || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized


February 27, 2005


C’mon, Would a 9 Year Old Lie?

The NY Times is reporting that Bush & Co have decided to take a 9-year old prodigy on the road to help them stump for Social Security reform.

The battle over Social Security has been joined by an unusual lobbyist, a 9-year-old from Texas who has agreed to travel supporting President Bush’s proposal.

The boy, Noah McCullough, made a splash with his encyclopedic command of presidential history, earning five appearances on the “Tonight” show and some unusual experiences in the presidential campaign last year. He beat Howard Dean in a trivia contest at the Democratic National Convention and wrote for his local newspaper about his trip to see the inauguration.

Noah plans to run for the White House in 2032 - and he wants Social Security addressed before then.

“It will be bankrupt when I’m president,” he said.

Awwwwww… Isn’t that adorable???

The real question here is not whether this is dishonest and a poor way to inform the American people about whether or not Social Security needs to be reformed. As Reagan once quipped regarding politics, “It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.” Certainly this is nothing more than showmanship, that does little to inform anyone of anything.

The real question is what has become of the American citizenry? Do Bush and Rove really believe that the American people will respond more to a 9-year old kid than an actual debate on the issues? I think that they do. Rove is quite a smart guy. I’m worried that he’s right.

Hat Tip: dadahead

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 4:12 pm || Permalink || Comments Off || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized



The Oscars

I’m not planning on doing much posting on the Oscars. Since I’ve seen only two of the movies released in the last year and a half, neither of which are nominated for Oscars, there’s not a whole lot to say.

I might have to chime in if Chris Rock goes off and starts swearing and slandering people. The hopes that it might happen is the sole reason I’m even going to watch.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 3:13 pm || Permalink || Comments (1) || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized


February 26, 2005


My Dust Bowl Migration

In high school, many of my English teachers had an affinity for modern and minority authors. Thus, somehow I missed out on being forced to read many of the ‘classics’. Of course, one of them did assign Anthem by Ayn Rand. So I’ve started going back and reading some of the books that I missed out on. (Yes, I am enough of a nerd that I consider it “missing out”, and now am going back and doing it).

The most recent was The Grapes of Wrath, a story about dust bowl farmers leaving a situation where there was no work for them, only to arrive at a situation where there was no work for them. Written in the populist new-deal era, it of course looks upon unions and collectivism as the solution. Few people seem to understand that the only constant in life is change, and that rather than tilting at windmills, change dictates that seeking employment outside subsistence farming was necessary for the dust bowl migrants.

In a desire to not be stuck in the hellhole of a modern-day Sysiphus, I have decided that it is time to jump ahead of the curve. California has ceased to be the Golden State, and is no longer a land of opportunity for a young couple looking to buy a house and start a family. It’s a sad day, because California is one of the most beautiful, temperate states in our great Union, and while I did not grow up here, my wife’s family and childhood are here. But when an electrical engineer cannot earn enough money to buy a house and earn a living, it is time for a change. That said, we’re off to the ‘Dirty South’. In mid-May, we trade in the land of fruits, flakes and nuts for Hot-lanta. I’m interested to watch the transition of my wife from Valley Girl to Georgia Peach, and excited for the prospect of having a real, actual, finished basement to myself. To all the people that have ruined California, you have it all to yourself now: I’ve found greener pastures.

Posted By: Brad Warbiany @ 10:39 am || Permalink || Comments (11) || Trackback URL || Categories: Uncategorized


February 25, 2005


The ‘Trust Fund’ Explained

Okay, so here’s the deal. My wife and I both work. Right now, she’s running a surplus. The amount of money she earns exceeds her necessary expenditures. So she’s passing that money to me. Of course, in our future, the demographics are going to change, and when we have kids, she is not going to be working. Thus, at that time, I can pay back the “trust fund” that she’s building up, right? Of course, during this time, that “trust fund” has been used to pay rent, bills, and other things. So when the day comes, for me to “pay back” the fund, it will require me to either make more money or reduce other expenditures. Since our actual income and expenses are aggregate, losing one income hurts both.

There’s a little accounting trick going on here. Of course, it’s the same accounting trick our government is using. Who is it tricking? Us.

That’s where our government is. Everyone keeps talking about the social security “trust fund”. The trust fund is not money that the SSA has saved. It’s a drawer full of IOUs from our government. One pocket has spent the money it should be holding for the other.

For this reason, we really need to figure out how to fix this issue. They say that in 2018, Social Security will have to draw from the “trust fund”. Right now, the payroll tax is providing money not into savings that will be drawn later, but is paying for general expenditures of the government. As that trust fund transfer decreases and then reverses, the rest of the government will either have to increase taxes or reduce spending to cover the difference. This is a problem next year, a bigger problem the year after that, and only grows and grows. The references to the “trust fund” only confuse the issue.

Once you remove the references to the “trust fund”, you realize a simple fact: to cover social security and maintain constant spending in other areas, total government spending will increase, and tax receipts need to increase with it.

<