« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

It’s the Entitlements, stupid!

By: Matthew Hurtt (Diary)  |  March 4th, 2011 at 11:07 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an interesting bit of information online this morning. In summary, it appears as though self-identified “tea party” folks are generally disinterested in making significant cuts to Entitlements.

It’s disheartening.

And while I could write volumes about how the “tea party” is less of a policy-based movement and more of an emotional reaction to the concept of “big government,” I’ll focus my efforts on this post to Entitlements, which will be the downfall of our nation.

And I’ll start with this: I don’t want my Social Security. Uncle Sam, you can keep the payments I’ve already given you over the course of the last eight years. I don’t want them back. In fact, I’ll even let you continue take 10% of what I’m currently paying into Social Security as my part to keep funding this monstrosity for the legions of Baby Boomers who are retiring in the next twenty years. (And that 10% is negotiable.)

Can I just opt out, please? I’m 24 and under no illusion I’ll reap the “benefits” of this program when I retire.

We can’t afford this. Tea party, are you listening?! We can’t afford to continue this ponzi scheme. If Bernie Madoff and Bob McLean couldn’t get away with it, why can the federal government?

I, for one, am glad Republicans are looking through the budget and cutting things. But these cuts are miniscule when compared to the actual size of the entire federal budget. Need a visualization? This path is unsustainable. For those of you who like charts, the Heritage Foundation has a lot of pretty ones. In the 2010 fiscal year, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security made up over 40% of the total federal budget.

Americans need tough love if we want to come out of this looming fiscal catastrophe on any semblance of sound footing. Obama’s “Deficit Commission” proposed raising the retirement age for Social Security…very slowly. The average life expectancy in the United States in 1935 when Social Security was established hovered at about 62 years of age. Today’s life expectancy is about 78 years of age, which adds 16 years of Social Security payments to the average retiree.

Immediately, Congress should raise the retirement age of Americans under the age of 18 or 21 to 78 and tie Social Security payments to average life expectancy. Of those between 21 and 30, raise the age 20 72 or 74 or so and cut the losses. Between 31 and 40, 70. Cut the losses.

Most importantly, allow people to opt out. I’m under no illusion that I’ll get any Social Security payments, and I don’t plan on relying on the government for retirement income.

As former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said, we’re a nation of whiners. Cutting federal spending is going to hurt. A lot. And people aren’t going to like it. At all. But we have to do it.

Call your Congressman or Senator today and tell them to get serious about Entitlement spending.

–

This post first appeared at MatthewHurtt.com.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • YnotNOW

    Thanks for your perspective as a young American. Cuts will hurt. We all need to grow up and deal with it.
    No more dancig around the issue with the easy cuts to “fraud, waste and abuse” or suggesting we can balance the budget by cutting “bridges to nowhere” and earmarkes. Republicans need to be honest with the taxpayers and tell them “yes, this program has value, and will hurt to cut – but we have to cut it anyway.”
    Entitlements are where the real money resides, and they are growing fast enough to crowd out all spending unless we reign them in.

  • Bill S

    The Social Security and Medicare system and the politics thereof is/are designed to not give a rip about what someone your age thinks. The voting power is at the older end of the age range, not with young people. The older folks are the ones who want their SS and Medicare payoff…they’ve been donating to it for decades, and they want their “ROI”. They’re retired, they’re the ones who vote in every election, and they’re the ones who act as poll judges, etc.

    OTOH, the younger voting bloc is less engaged and has a lot less sway on the politicians themselves. You’re funding the system in classic Ponzi fashion, thus your participation is critical. Furthermore, any changes to the system as-is are viewed as a threat to the viability of the money being paid to today’s seniors.

    Result: they listen to Grandma and not you.

    So it’s admirable that you’re willing to opt out, but the fact is: it won’t happen. The retirement age thing MIGHT happen, but no way they will let you NOT pay. Ain’t happening.

  • http://www.matthewhurtt.com Matthew Hurtt

    I would be willing to pay up to 25% of what I’m currently paying to keep the program afloat if I could just opt out. There has to be some figure that would prove SSI would have more money if I opted out and paid less than if I just stayed in the program.

  • Common_Cents

    Unfortunately that’s you. (all of us).

    Demographics tell us that there will be fewer workers for each beneficiary. Even if everyone still pays and nobody gets to opt out there is an imbalance.

    I don’t see how young people will escape this. As older people are more involved, united and vocal in government.

    Here’s the dirty little secret no politicians will tell you.

    SS is not a lock box, it is nothing more than a general obligation of the government, no matter what SS tax revenue brings in. They simply must reprioritize spending across government.

    Can you tell your mortgage company that your ‘mortgage fund’ is low? while making payments on a boat and a sports car? Hardly not, neither can the govt tell you SS is ‘bankrupt’ as long as govt isn’t bankrupt. Well, I guess they can lie ;)