Hannah Boulanger
Ms. Duquette
November 14, 2010
Period 3 Rotation B
Issue Essay
Social Security Reform
To privatize, or not to privatize? That is the essential question. Since its creation from virtually nothing in 1935, social security has been an important issue discussed by both Republicans and Democrats alike (SSA, 1). Recently it has become an increasingly popular discussion. With a large number of “Baby-Boomers” hitting the age of retirement, the fears of the future of Social Security are being questioned. What will happen to the workers that pay for it today? Will there be anything left? Republicans and Democrats have both expressed their views on the matter.
Many Republicans, including President Bush, believe in a Social Security system that utilizes privatization. In their views, partial privatization of full privatization would be ideal for the system. The option to voluntarily have the chose of what plan to have is ideal for many. Under this plan, workers would have the option to secure a portion of their payroll tax and set it aside in a savings account that is solely for them (Bernstein, Paragraph 4). Bush’s 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security called for partial privatization. It would allow workers to “maintain voluntary personal accounts [that would] augment Social Security” (CSSS, 2). It would also prevent the money within the Social Security Administration funds from being invested into stocks of companies. Republicans’ belief of minimal government intervention could also play a role in their view of how social security should be run. By privatizing social security they would be able to get the government out of our private lives even more.
Democrats feel the exact opposite about the issue as Republicans do (no surprise with that one). They believe that privatization should not even be an option that is considered. They feel as though social security should remain how it is, under government control. By privatizing it, they fear that the current benefits received by retirees could experience substantial reductions. They also fear that the funds would not be put into the US
Both parties have made it clear that people currently receiving the benefits or those that will in the near future have nothing to worry about, it’s only the future generations that do. Also, while the differences between the views of Democrats and Republicans are completely different, compromise will certainly have to be made when it comes time to decide. The main issue is a result of either party’s view on the amount of government that should be present. Whether Social Security becomes privatized or not, or an alternative is enacted to make a significant difference, something needs to be done. Until it is changed, Republicans and Democrats will have to figure out some way to acquire bipartisan agreement.
Yeah i definitely think that the fact that the baby boomer's are hitting that social security age plays a key role one why this is a pressing issue now. And looking at the democratic viewpoint...if we just let the government control it, they think that it could experience "substantial reductions." Why is this? (not gonna lie, i'm not that well read on social security)
ReplyDeleteI'm not that well read on social security either. Like not at all. So I kind of need a better understanding of it before I can really say anything about the parties affiliations. I do understand though why the democrats would want to keep it public and under government control. These are the policies they live by and would only want to look out for the beneficiaries of Social Security. Good Job Hannah!
ReplyDeleteThis issue is very relevant to today because of all the baby boomers hitting the age at which they start receiving social security benefits. The Democrats support more government control on this issue, as they do with most everything, but it confuses me that they expect reductions as they let the government take the reigns. I wish I knew a little bit more about this topic so that I could make a more informed response. Great paper!
ReplyDeleteThe Republican side has some good ideas, make people pay for their own for the most part, giving them more incentive to save more and put more into the system. However, for those who cannot afford to put more money in, should thier lives be worse off just because they can't save as much? That's where the Democratic point of view comes in, that all should recieve the same benifits and you can save other funds on your own if you wish. Which side is best, to be honest I don't know enough about the issue to say, but they both make valid points
ReplyDelete