Short-sighted generation must plan for retirement

(U-WIRE) NEW YORK – For many students, it is difficult enough to predict what we will… (U-WIRE) NEW YORK – For many students, it is difficult enough to predict what we will be doing four years from now. It may, therefore, seem silly to ask, but where do you think we will be in 2052?

After all, 2052 still seems far away. However, it is in 2052 that the Congressional Budget Office predicts Social Security will become insolvent. Nearly 50 years before that happens, one might wonder why Social Security is a current political issue at all. Accordingly, when the Bush administration recently declared a Social Security crisis, some cried foul.

The Jan 10, 2005, issue of The New York Times offered some support to these critics, citing “a far brighter outlook than in 1983, the last time Congress shored up Social Security, when it was just days from insolvency.” As the article noted, with more than $1.5 trillion in reserves, Social Security is hardly within days of collapse.

Why, then, do some consider Social Security in crisis? And, if there is a crisis, where is it and why talk about it now?

Simply put, as Americans aged 17-22, we are the crisis. Many of us who work already pay Social Security taxes. As such, we also will expect Social Security benefits when we retire. With the youngest of us turning 65 in 2052, that year will mark the time when we meet retirement. It is our benefits, then, that are expected to deliver Social Security its final blow. Without reform, it is also those benefits that may be lost.

Social Security exists to guarantee workers a secure income upon retirement. Yet, for those expected to retire around 2052, there can be no such security with the current system. In his weekly radio address, President George W. Bush encapsulated the problem in one sentence: “Promises are being made that Social Security cannot keep.”

Clearly, Social Security is sick. While some may question the severity of the illness, few deny that it exists. After all, as The New York Times notes, despite distaste for the President’s plan, even “Democrats concede that Social Security faces significant financial problems that would be best addressed sooner rather than later.” And, as any good doctor could tell you, the costs of curing a disease tomorrow are likely far greater than the costs of preventive medicine today. Delayed treatment can ultimately be more expensive, intrusive and painful, if the disease can still be cured at all.

Certainly, we have time to solve this problem. Perhaps a quick fix could even be found in 2052, just as a solution was found in 1983. Yet, hope that a solution will ultimately be found is not a plan. Sound policy is based on calculations, not hopes. Calculations show that benefits will exceed payroll tax revenues by 2018, so we must remember that the clock is ticking.

To some, talk of reforming Social Security is akin to attempting to destroy the welfare state. Without reform, though, the system may destroy itself. For those who believe in a welfare state, the question of Social Security directly relates to what such a state means: Will the state protect our welfare?

Democrats would be wise, then, to counter Bush’s proposals for reform with reformation proposals of their own rather than opposition to reform altogether. In the words of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, “At the same time we acknowledge that it is the most successful domestic program in American history, we should also admit that Social Security, in its present form, is unsustainable. And then we should come up with a plan that is different than what President Bush [is] proposing.”

Should such a proposal win acceptance, it could not only save Social Security, but also demonstrate that the Democratic Party has remained true to protecting the welfare state. With the New Deal, FDR built a strengthened Democratic Party around ideals that remain today. With the party in transition once again, there would seem no better issue upon which Democrats could reinvigorate that legacy for years to come. As O’Neill suggests, though, one question remains: “Do we have political leaders who are interested in surpassing Franklin Roosevelt’s achievement of 70 years ago?”

2052 may be far away. Yet, it is our generation — not current senators and congressmen– that will be eligible for Social Security when 2052 arrives. We, rather than Baby Boomers, have the most to lose. There will be disagreements over how to reform the system, and we have time for that debate. The debate, though, must start now.

Social Security may not be the most pressing concern today, and talk of a current crisis may seem overblown. Yet it is only by focusing on the problem that we can safeguard Social Security and prevent a seemingly inevitable crisis altogether. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that, when 2052 finally does arrive, we will be able to party like retirees in 1999.