'92 rrk
Fears abound that there will be no social security when the X-generation reaches senior citizenship. If it comes to this, today's youthful generation would be partly to blame for failing to meet head on the shameless political dialogue blathering extensively today. It matters little what your party affiliation might be: political awareness hinges on very basic political truths in this constitutional government of ours.
One very important truth is that the American matrix of governance is that the general welfare of all its citizens is on an equal plane to the nation's defense. In a nation such as ours grounded in enlightenment, there was to evolve a nation with but a shadow of tension past among the haves, have little, and have-nots. The politicians of today ruthlessly obviate this principle because we have disgracefully allowed ourselves to lose sight of the prima facie foundation of a proud nation once dedicated to enlightened good will that was to wing us to a truly humane society.
This becomes clear if we view the underlying theme of social security for what it is in spirit—the stamp of civilization—a very basic right. However, in order to launch social security almost sixty years ago it had to be called by another name. Today the term insurance is no longer valid. The benefit is now institutionalized and an integral division of government and should be thus appropriated. Therefore, it is a governmental expenditure as any other service rendered, but keep in mind it is also the stamp of currency for old age: because one retires does not mean one retires from the consuming public. This ostensible entitlement, virtually all of which is re-circulated, is a huge boost to the economy and in actuality pays for itself tenfold. Millions are gainfully employed as its direct result. In Florida alone, countless thousands of young people are employed and pay tax—state and federal— because of these monthly checks and in turn consume for other businesses to employ, flourish and pay more tax—all on the strength of what short-sighted politicians still perceive as a give-a-way. Politicians and regretfully voters, forget this fundamental truth of economics: it is far better to have a government of tax and spend than one of tax and not spend.
Nor should we forget the moral stance of an enlightened government to award those who lived and worked by the rules for a laboring lifetime, or those disabled physically, mentally or economically.
The prevailing problem today is not its "cost" but the way social security is paid for. Any thinking senior citizen would resent his children having to pay dearly for his old age leisure as seems to be the case today. If indeed it is believed, as has been said many times, that ensuing generations should enjoy a higher standard of living, then it would follow that the younger generations should not be taxed seven times over what their parents and grandparents were taxed for this benefit. This will only worsen because the commonwealth stubbornly clings to the mythology of terms—"insurance" as though it were a legitimate premium. It is not. It has always been a regressive tax to help those in need. It is, however, dramatized currently by the harsh surtax on the young's labor. It is heralded as a design for investment in the future, but used in the grim politics of now.
From social security's inception, the future was always now. My mother in the 30s never paid a cent toward a widow's pension for the obvious reason of theretofore being none. My father's insurance barely carried the burial and a couple of years of bringing up four kids. Roosevelt's concept was that she was "entitled" to the $16 a month per child. What he would say today is that my mother had the constitutional responsibility of rearing four citizens who in turn would contribute in some modest way to the nation. There was no such modesty with Bill Clinton's mother: her pension helped rear a president!
Careless terminology leads to careless thinking: "What I get is what I paid for all my working days." And like Senator Gramm's ludicrous statement to the effect that Clinton had better not tamper with the only part of government in black ink. "Social security is not the problem," he went on, "it didn't run-up the debt." [ He forgot to mention how it was running up youth's debt.] Then he whined, "My mamma doesn't want her social security reduced. And when my mamma says something, I have to listen." A classic amorphous aphorism that still pervades the nation. [ Currently, Gramm obscenely is against universal health care because his mamma has Medicare and he has federal medical insurance that neither can be taken away—the hell with those who don't have it.] This black ink is the result of the ruthless FICA tax on the workers and employers of the past twenty-five years.
Social security is begrudgingly but rightly perceived among youth as a rip-off of its own economic right to develop because the entitlement is foolishly structured and accelerated to be self-supportive by "premiums." In truth, social security is a natural right in virtue of the advance of civilization that insists its senior citizens have access to the consumption continuum instead of left—in the end even more "costly"—to the havoc of unconscionable abandonment. It is also implied in the constitution as the transvaluation of the natural instinct of the individual to protect his parents in old age—the natural reward for a responsible, productive life. That there are rotten apples in the barrel of social security is immaterial. That all our founding fathers were not saints is of no consequence. It is the embodiment of the spirit of helping others to wind down their lives with some dignity is what matters most. Because of this natural imperative and trust there is no need for "insurance". The Constitution is the policy under Article I section 8.1—insuring the general welfare. There can be no "general welfare" if agéd citizens are not protected; but neither is there when other generations are left unprotected.
With or without a trust fund the constitutional mandate is undeniable. Had the natural evolution of the New Deal not been diverted by the all too many insensitive regimes, social security would have been merged—not to mention national health—into OMB as an inviolate item of expenditure tantamount to national defense and undulating with the ambience of preservation and primary needs. Social security would have merged into a system of general levy that calculated the needs of its current senior citizenry—and lent breathing space to the younger, if so desired, to invest savings for their old age in the custom of their earlier years of secondary needs beyond the basics of social security. Here there would be no suspicion of a trust besieged; for—as the normal cost of an enlightened government—it would be an inviolate constitutional right for everyone who reached the age of retirement—all would have the right to survive commensurate with this advance of society. But it also means that in a storm of crisis, sacrifices do leak through the umbrella and all would have to lift the collar. It is not the ghost of JFK that jars the consciousness of "ask not what the country..." but the moral imperative of constitutional government that should have long sent into oblivion the hatred and greed flowing into a divisive morass oozing over the country.
The giant step of the heavy boot to splash in this mess would be to restore the income tax structure to unadulterated fairness and appropriate social security within the general fund of governance. Blatant garnisheing from kids and young adults who work barely above minimum wage over 8% in FICA and Medicare is oppressive and ignoble. It would make far better sense to allow that income to flow in the marketplace. On the other hand, for those who are well above the minimal income to pay the same rate is another example of defending those that already have. If the income tax index had remained where it was before Congress, Kennedy, Carter and Reagan started tampering, FICA would have remained at its nominal range of 1½-3% and the economy would have remained targeted to a high standard of living for all.
The X-generation is virtually the last line of defense for this country that has lost political integrity. The sophists have taken over the media and politics. There are few heroes to protect the future. Not a day goes by in congress, in the written or electronic media, that a talking head or columnist does not express an arrant falsehood of political persuasion that invariably infers economic expertise in cost analysis in order to protect those and their progeny that have. Fewer of the X-generation are progeny of those that have; and the Y-generation will have even fewer. Gone are the champions of the helpless. [ No one reads Profiles in Courage; they rush to limbo, wallowing in thoughtless self-righteousness.] It is for today's youth to wear the favor of their nation, loved ones and future loved ones: It is for them to mount the charger and lance the dragon of corrupt sophistry that has denigrated what made this country great.
