January 04th, 2007

President Bush asked the 110th Congress for bipartisan cooperation in fixing Social Security. Bush's Wall Street Journal op-ed calls for the new Congress to make entitlement reforms for the good of future generations.

S4's Mark Harris reacted to the news: "There is clearly a need for cooperation if we are going to succeed in reaching a long-term solution. The longer we wait to make changes in Social Security, the fewer options we have. And though the huge number of near-retirees adds urgency to the debate, we must make sure that reform is fair to today's young people as well as future generations."

Read our press release here.

January 03rd, 2007

"Our future is in jeopardy.  Bicycle seats may cause impotence down the road," this girl warned after riding several miles to see us.  "That's nothing," we said.  "We're getting screwed by Social Security right now!"  She immediately put aside her bike campaign and joined S4.

Join us in saving Social Security by signing up on Facebook.  We have over 1500 Facebook members, and there are regular wall posts from college students across the country.  One young Democrat writes, "I really believe that a semi-private retirement account is the way to go."  It is indeed, and you can help the cause by joining S4 today! 

The latest in retirement news--I'm reluctant to call it "Social Security news" because the connection isn't clear yet--is the idea of a universal 401(k).  We have talked about this idea a little already, and a lot of folks have expressed interest in the concept. 

Senator Jeff Sessions offered a clearer view of how such an idea might come to fruition with his op-ed in the Washington Post ("A Bipartisan Fix for Retirees," see "In the News" to the right).  Sessions proposes the creation of a PLUS Account (Portable Lifelong Universal Savings) of $1000 for each newborn, with additional contributions diverted automatically when the babies grow up and begin toddling in the workplace.

Gene Sperling of the Center for American Progress published his universal 401(k) plan, A Progressive Framework for Social Security Reform, nearly a year ago.  His framework calls for a government match of 2-to-1 on the contributions of low-income families and 1-to-1 on middle-income families.   

Sessions and Sperling are just two of many people offering plans, though I would bet that Sessions is the only one among them with four S's in his last name.  Some plans, such as Sperling's, include sections that deal specifically with Social Security. (Sperling includes a "3 percent surcharge on income over $200,000"--also known as a tax increase--in his proposal.)  But if we take these parts out and focus exclusively on the idea of a universal 401(k), we're left wondering how much good is in this idea. 

It's a fair question, particularly as we find out to what extent a universal 401(k) will impact Social Security.  An op-ed in the New York Times suggests, "For every dollar spent on the universal 401(k), the federal government could spend one dollar less on Medicare and Social Security benefits."  Sessions, on the other hand, writes, "[M]y plan would simply serve as a supplement to the Social Security system, not altering the program in any way."

We'll stay tuned to this debate and keep you updated.  In the meantime, add "Get personal accounts INSIDE Social Security" to your list of resolutions for 2007.

January 02nd, 2007

Ryan Sorba, S4 hard core ROCKER, has been advocating for Social Security reform for YEARS! Check out this picture...

December 22nd, 2006

For those who have not already explored the Social Security Administration website, it is worth checking out the list of frequently asked questions about the future of Social Security.

Questions include "What will happen if Social Security is not changed?" and "How big is the future problem?", and answers are short and concise.  You can find out why the payroll tax might reach 17.78%, how other countries are dealing with aging populations, and why it is important to fix Social Security now.  And when you are done learning, you can share your knowledge with all of your friends and family!  What else could they possibly wish for this holiday season?

December 19th, 2006

Sometimes we get curious and check out what the groups of non-reformers are up to.  One such group is Americans United to Protect Social Security, which certainly sounds like a noble collection of people.  In fact, their logo reflects this attitude of American workers banding together to support Social Security:

It's a pretty neat logo.  If you look at it a certain way, you might think that these are four people applauding a comedy or tragedy in an otherwise empty theater.  There appear to be two women and two men, and you'll note that despite no black or white people, there's a pretty good variety of pigmentation.  You'll also see that the green one has a head tilt resembling that of Sen. Hillary Clinton. 

But what is most notable is that there are four people.  Four people are holding up the Social Security card and the goals of Americans United.  And this is a little odd,  because the Social Security system has only three workers per retiree.  This means that, if we're going to be accurate, we should really cut the purple woman out of the group (or any one of the others, if you prefer).

But there is something else to consider.  In 2040, there will be only two workers per retiree.  Which means that, if we're going to be accurate about the long-term picture, we should not include the blue guy, either.  It's going to be just Samson the brown man and Hillary the green woman in thirty years.  And frankly, I think that makes the outlook for Social Security pretty bleak.

December 15th, 2006

 In an interview with BusinessWeek, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says,

"Social Security reform, entitlement reform overall, is a major issue for the President.  The sooner we fix it, the less costly it will be, the more economic flexibility we will have, and the fairer it will be to the younger generation...The President believes strongly that personal accounts are an important part of this puzzle.  And I see it that way, too.  But the Democrats can come to the table and talk about their alternatives.  What I want to do is get reasonable people together and come up with something that works."

By and large, Americans agree with President Bush that Social Security reform is a major issue.  According to an article in Rasmussen Reports, 57% of the general population support fixing Social Security, and an overwhelming 77% of people under 30 want change. 

Yet it remains unclear exactly how most Americans think we ought to change the system.  Only 27% are in favor of a tax increase, and a mere 15% support benefit cuts.  Rasmussen offers a rather vague proposal that would allow workers to determine contributions based on anticipated retirement age, but I for one have no idea if I'll be working until 65, 75, or 85.  This is more of a concept than a viable solution. 

Here is something to consider though: If 77% of people under 30 want a Social Security fix, and 66% of people 18-29 support personal accounts, then only 1 in 7 young people who recognize the funding problem suggest a solution outside of PRA's.  This is proof that when we are given an option for protecting our future, we choose personal accounts.  And it is even more proof that we are winning this debate.   

December 13th, 2006

The United Kingdom announced yesterday that personal accounts will become part of its state pension program beginning in 2012.  Workers not covered by employer pension plans will be enrolled in personal accounts with the ability to opt out, though the government expects few people to do so.  Officials predict 6 million to 10 million citizens will participate in the program.

The reform proposal is based on the work of the UK Pensions Commission, which was established in order to "meet the needs of generations to come."  Specifically, the commission was charged with addressing the problems of fewer workers per retiree and a low private savings rate.  If these problems sound eerily familiar, note that BBC News reports, "The United States faces some of the same demographic pressures as the UK...The social security system [in the US] is projected to become insolvent by about 2040."  Lesson: We should pay attention to our "more intelligent and civilized" friends in the UK.  

In coming up with the proposal, officials decided upon five criteria for pension reforms. Here are the criteria, quoted from the Pensions White Paper: 

1) Promote personal responsibility.

2) Be fair.

3) Provide greater simplicity.

4) Be affordable.

5) Offer a sustainable solution.

The Pensions White Paper goes on to explain in detail how it is that personal accounts meet all five criteria.  If you think this too sounds familiar, well, we know how you feel.

Now that their work is done in the UK, do the folks from the Pensions Commission want to help us meet the needs of our future generations?

December 12th, 2006

Every once in a while we hear from someone that young people in support of reform are being duped about Social Security.  A typical case can be found in The Plot Against Social Security, a book that seeks to "redress the [im]balance of information" in the debate.  Though there isn't much information between the covers, there are plenty of examples such as the following, which supposedly explains how young people were fooled:

[The reformers'] plan was to drive a generational wedge into the system's broad base of support by suggesting that the retired and near-retired would reap far better benefits than younger people just entering the workforce.

That's right.  The devious plan of the reformers was to...tell the truth!  And we, the naive youth, were silly enough to believe the facts. 

Or maybe we weren't.  On the very next page, the author writes:

[T]he evidence for the so-called generational divide in levels of support for Social Security is questionable.  While it does appear that younger workers feel greater doubts about the system's future, the statistics don't show lower support for the program in that age group than among the elderly.

So have we drunk the Kool-Aid or not?  The author doesn't seem to be too happy that we "appear" to "feel greater doubts" about Social Security, but what does this even mean?  The only scientific way to make such conclusions about a group's feelings would be by using statistics.  And unless the statistics are bad, that conclusion wouldn't appear to represent the group's feelings, it would represent them.  The fact is that a lot of us worry about Social Security, and it is silly to suggest that we do not or should not. 

But there is a more interesting point.  The author's motive--and it is the same one that drives a lot of arguments that young people have been duped--is to somehow prove that we do not support fundamental reform.  It's an impossible case to make. 

In this instance, the faulty logic is that because we support the Social Security program, we must therefore oppose personal retirement accounts.  Because we believe that workers should retire in dignity, because we want our grandparents to be financially secure, we must therefore oppose reform that would provide the system with long-term solvency.  Even if we support personal accounts, the rhetoric goes, we must really (perhaps secretly) oppose them.  And even if Pew Research shows that 2 out of 3 young people favor personal accounts, we must actually feel differently.

The truth is that we are concerned about the future of Social Security, and it is precisely this concern that leads us to advocate for personal accounts.  It is because we are tired of politicians spending our Social Security money on other programs that we demand change.  It is because we are paying more into the system than we'll eventually get out that we support choice and ownership.  And it is because we believe that every American, young and old, deserves to own and choose his or her future that we support personal retirement accounts.  It just so happens that we have the facts on our side, too.