A Voice for the Youth - Social Security Reform

By Adam C Posted in Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In the recent debate on Social Security reform, the important voice of the youth of America has been conspicuously absent. Sadly, Rock The Vote decided to cozy up to its liberal sponsors and team up with the AARP to become a propaganda outlet for liberal talking points. It thus missed out on a chance to at least provide a platform for multiple youth viewpoints in this debate. (Although comments like these show that the youth aren't falling in line with Rock The Vote's AARP lovefest)


Fortunately for the majority of youth who support personal accounts, Students for Saving Social Security was formed in the past month and has been gaining steam since then. The founders, Jonathan Swanson and Patrick Wetherille of Yale and Haverford respectively, are quite familiar with social security policy through their studies and their work experience on Capitol Hill. The have launched an effort to unify the islands of support for social security reform that exist throughout the country on university campuses.


Their game plan is to use the energy and efforts of students (who have the most to lose in the old Social Security system) to help push forward reforms that protect future generations. They are rounding up campus leaders to write Op-Eds, form local chapters of SSSS, and start campus debates on Social Security. Their longer term plans include a national rally in Washington and creating other avenues for students to be heard in the ongoing discussions. Hopefully they will also have time to improve their website so that new information and opportunities are more visible (maybe even in a blog format).


If you are a current student who wants to help ensure that Personal Retirement Accounts become reality and that your Social Security is not cut 27% in 2042, contact Jonathan and Patrick now through their website and start doing the little things that create a national movement. Harnessing the power of the youth movement in favor of a policy instead of against a policy or person is quite a feat. I expect to hear more about Jonathan and Patrick in the future.

I had the opportunity to do a short (e-mail) interview with Mr. Swanson last week. Here is the transcript:


1. What can students do to help enact meaningful reform to SS?


Students can provide the energy for the debate. Any student who supports personal accounts can come to secureourfuture.org and sign up to be a team leader at their campus or sign up for our email list. More ambitious students can help us organize at the national level. Students can write op-eds for their college papers, distribute pro-personal accounts posters, attend rallies, etc.


2. How does SSSS help students make a difference?


SSSS will be helping with all of the above. All team leaders are provided with a Team Leader Toolkit: advice on how to write an op-ed, posters to put up around campus, etc.


3. Is there a petition to sign or some other action item that students can accomplish on the website?


Not yet, good idea, we'll get on that. For now students can sign up for our email list.
[Ed. Note: There is now a petition to sign and send to your representatives at SSSS]


4. What are your goals? What is your strategy to accomplish these goals?


Our goal is to make the biggest impact on the Soc Sec debate as possible. In the short term we are growing our campus network as much as possible. We've only been rolling for a few days but already have 35 chapters around the nation. We want hundreds in the next couple weeks. In the meantime our team leaders are writing op-eds to be published in their campus papers. The first ones are going up this week. As our campus network and influence grows we will begin to submit our op-eds to national papers. Our ultimate goal is to get op-eds in all the major papers, get face time on TV, etc. We're ambitious and energized to take this as far as we can. In May we are tentatively planning a rally to be held in DC.


Things have literally just started for SSSS but the response from students around the nation has been astounding. Honestly, I expected a tepid response but we're getting more interest that we can handle. I'm currently just delegating authority to our national leaders and firming up our organizational structure.


(Cross-posted at Now, you might convince some people if you can create the sense the Social Security will be totally kaput in 2042. Like this guy does:



As a matter of fact, by the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now. And that's what we're here to talk about, a system that will be bankrupt.

Less accurate, I suppose, but perhaps more effective than threatening a 27% cut 37 years down the road.

Accuracy by Adam C

I believe that reform and accracy can go hand in hand.  By the way, an organization that can't pay its bills is bankrupt, which is what SS will be in 2042 (or 2041 according to the most recent report).  Also FWIW, as a non-student, I will be roughly 60 years old when SS goes under.  So today's college students will be in their late 50s.  They'll pay the high prices and then have the "guarnateed benefit" slashed right before they retire.

Most young Americans know SS won't "be there" for them when they retire.  PRAs are just a great way to ensure that something is left for you from all the taxes you pay into the system.

To the contrary by Gengisdon

All this overheated rhetoric about Social Security is a bit silly.  I'm not sticking my head in the sand, either; while I don't like math, I can run numbers too.  Social Security will be there if we as a country take the steps necessary to provide it.  Period.  I intend to continue voting for the party that will fund it.  So will quite a few other people.  I'm not opposed to adjustments, but any attempt to convert social security into investment will meet my resistance, whether it be PRA or otherwise.  I also have no interest in opt outs - what strengths the system possesses is due to the element of hanging together rather than separately.

I know this is your baby, Doverspa, and I mean no disrespect.  I have read the threads, I will continue to read them, but I just don't see it.  But I will continue to read - minds are like parachutes and all that.

of your ideas I am very grateful for you being honest about Social Security.  It's hard to debate "spin" and you don't.  Thanks.

I've stated my preferances in the past & won't go into details here.  I have to figure that there will have to be fee raises, benefit cuts, or some combination of the 2.

Changing nature by Adam C

I understand the system was originally one of insurance.  But it is no longer used that way by the vast majority of recipients.  That is not saying it isn't important to keeping some of the elderly out of poverty, but it is an expected part of retirement.  It is figured into retirement plans.  Most people will receive money from Social Security now whereas only a small percentage of people did so in the 1940s.  It is treated like a very unrisky investment by most people.  I still fail to see how letting some people increase their risk (and return) while letting others stay in the unrisky (and low return) system undermines its purpose.  If these were true private accounts that could be thrown at any one stock and crash and burn, I'd be just as worried as you.  But they're not.  They're heavily regulated and diversified investments that do relatively well (see: Thrift Savings Plan).

Further, if you are concerned about the "raids" on Social Security as much as I am, then these personal lockboxes that are no longer property of the U.S. should be very appealing.  They can't be taken away in the way the "guaranteed benefits" can.  But I know you've heard these arguments before.  I hope PRAs pass and I hope they outperform your expectation.  And a few decades from now in my dream, you can casual mention that your fears were overblown and the new system is both socially helpful and financially secure.

tell Bush by CA Pol Junkie

While I disagree with the idea of private accounts and the notion that they are related to saving Social Security, all the efforts of SSSS are futile without some leadership from the top.  Having faux town hall meetings won't put Social Security changes on the map.  Unless Bush comes up with an actual plan, on paper, nobody else will.  There's too much bad news in any change to make people take the political risk.

When GWB first started talking about this, I remember he assured those over 55 that their Social Security was safe.  Then he pitched to the younger folks that these Personal Accounts would ensure a comfortable retirement without relying on the -allegedly- highly troubled SS system.

OK, I'm 46.  Where do I fall in this?  Since I have put a significant amount of money into this fund, and will still be doing so for awhile, where is the pitch for me to get behind this radical change?

I don't see a plan, I don't see a solid explanation of how pulling significant money out for the personal accounts will be beneficial to the system, I don't see why some changes to the payment index and maybe increasing the taxes somewhat won't do the trick just as well.

If this is such a great idea, they are NOT getting the message out.  Those pathetic (and alleged) town-hall meetings are completely ineffective for getting information out to people so they can be persuaded!

I am just not convinced, and much more worried about Medicare.  And to think we just fixed that one!

SS and medicare by Adam C

I (and most people) agree that Medicare is going to more important and harder to fix.  However, that doesn't mean Social Security can be ignored.  It should be more straight forward to make SS solvent and thus is a piece of lower hanging fruit.

As for your age cohort, depending on the plan you are either included in the "old" crowd and thus are stuck in the old system without any changes.  Or you would be in with the younger people (like myself) and have an option to set up a PRA with a portion of your payroll tax.  If you don't like that risk, you can stay in the old system.

The reason the pitch is mainly toward the youth is because PRAs are optional.  If someone wants to stay in the old system they are comfortable with, they can do so.  But most young people don't expect to get anything from SS.  For them, a PRA is an account they have a property right to and cannot be taken away.  So they can be sure they will receive something from SS.

PRAs could be structured to help bridge the long term SS deficit (or they could not).  However, they cannot do it alone.  So a re-indexing, benefit cuts, or a payroll tax increase will have to be part of an overall package.  Despite the vociferous efforts of the left to demonize PRAs, I think the administration saw them as sweeteners to help make the necessary cuts to bring the system into balance.  Personally, here is my compromise proposal that brings the system into balance and allows both sides to claim a victory.

Wish me luck by ekpil2000

I am a college student with less than a week until I graduate. I don't understand all of the implications but I expect social security to be repaired and to be there in some form or another when I retire.

People are liveing longer and the average person spends more of their life getting educated why shouldn't we be expected to work propotionately longer as well. I don't want to but people realy need to deal with takeing bitter medicine.

Private acounts are higher risk. My understanding is one of the founding principles of social security its greatest strength perhaps is it's independance from the market. So that should there be a crash people still have some money to live on. Mutual funds arn't immune to a market crash. Are current trade laws strong enough and financial investigation thorough enough to make a crash not worth considering? Personaly I think they arn't.

Private acounts could spure the market.  The money the government borrowed from us before which I think they've done a decent job of paying back would need to come from some where else.

Private acounts take the money out of the governments hands. If you can't trust your elected officials you need to start voteing for better ones.

I like the idea on the site of having benefits being measured by prices because the thing ss should be insureing is a minimal level of food, and housing.

I'm also curious is a certain level of retirement funds untouchable by law. I'd hate to go bankrupt, lets say for medical reasons, and have a penssion taken away from me.

ssi by common terry

social security provides all working americans with insurance against most any long term disability. many people use the system well and it saves lives. others abuse it.

it is not simply a retirement account.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service