Among the many interesting reads included in the CotC (see post below) was this by Steve Verdon, Fixing Social Security and Medicare for Good. Steve analyzes a proposal for reform and starts out by listing ten 'viewpoints' he says are held 'all sides of the debate.' He's almost right, as almost everyone would agree with these ten points. And that is why we're in the mess we're in. Let's look at the points from an ethical perspective.
1. Old people should not be allowed to starve to death.
The interesting word here is 'allow,' meaning that if we don't take proactive measures we will be culpable in their starvation. You may argue that current Social Security beneficiaries have been promised their benefits, and therefore they are owed those benefits, but who exactly owes what? And is everyone, everywhere obligated to feed the starving? I don't make enough money to feed very many, myself.
2. Old people should not be deprived of basic medical care.
Absolutely correct. I certainly will not deprive anyone of their medical care. However, I reserve the right to choose if I shall pay for it.
3. Workers should be forced to save for retirement.
If your ethics allow you to force others to do your bidding with their money, you have a very twisted set of ethics.
4. Workers should have basic life and disability insurance.
...and good schools and vacation time and reliable cars and decent clothes, [not to mention good hygiene] and plenty of beer and an ice cream maker, too, except for the lactose intolerant ones. Am I obligated to pay for any of this?
5. Poor people should be given a break.
Absolutely. Everyone else, too.
6. Women and minorities should be treated fairly.
Yup.
7. Social insurance programs should be transparent.
Yes. Good luck with that.
8. Social insurance programs should be efficient.
{Rolling around, laughing, gasping for breath, wiping up the tears} Oh yeah, where were we?
9. Social insurance programs should not bankrupt the next generation.
It might bankrupt us, or not, but it certainly won't make us wealthier, either.
10. Social insurance programs should not destroy the economy.
Steve continues;
These are all completely and entirely reasonable points. Further, most people in the United States are probably going to think the 10 points above are reasonable and should be followed.
Anybody who is serious about reforming Social Security would do well to consider adopting these points. Now if you are on the far left of the spectrum then point 9 means you will have to destroy Social Security...as we know it today.
The proposals in Steve's post are reasonable, and a big improvement over the current system. But these ten points are full of ethical holes, and as long as the majority of people continue to subscribe to these ideas we'll continue to find trouble for ourselves.
Intentional or not, thanks for the chuckle! I got a lot of amusement out of your comments.
Posted by: Jay Solo at October 20, 2003 12:20 PMThanks. I only meant the humorous ones to be funny. Or something like that.
Posted by: Walter at October 20, 2003 08:00 PMWalter,
Yeah, from a hardcore libertarian perspective these all have some serious problems. The problem for you though, is trying to convince everybody that your position is the right one. That throwing Grandma off the wagon is morally correct and something not to feel guilty about.
Sure, from a purist standpoint we should each only be responsible for ourselves. I'll worry about my own retirement and health care in my old age.
Economic efficiency demands that if you can't pay for that life saving device/procedure/drug the you go without. You are absolutely right on that one.
The problem for you is convincing people this is the way the world ought to work.
If your ethics allow you to force others to do your bidding with their money, you have a very twisted set of ethics.
You are, of course, absolutely correct here. However, I think the idea of forced savings is preferred to the current income transfer system. Ideally, we'd not have either system, but we don't live in an ideal world.
I don't think there will be the same level of problems with Kotlikoff's proposals as you think. The money that is saved, is yours and it is in an account earmarked for you (a huge improvement over the current system). When you retire that money will be there (we can't necessarily say that about the current system). Is the compulsory aspect of the savings welfare reducing, absolutely. No doubt about it. But doing nothing--which is what I fear your position will result in--will result in a much, much worse outcome.
Its called a compromise.
Posted by: Steve at October 21, 2003 04:46 PMSteve, I don't disagree with anything you've said in the comment above. This blog, however, is more concerned with ethics than practical politics. That doesn't mean I don't understand politics, and were I a member of congress I would enthusiastically vote in favor of Kotlikoff's proposals. They certainly are better than the curent system, an opinion I stated in the original post.
Posted by: Walter at October 21, 2003 10:59 PM