Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January 10th, 2011

Whatever happened to the wise advice our parent passed down to us about teasing and name calling? Weren’t we all taught some version of “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”?

The crocodile tears from the Washington crowd about “overheated rhetoric” leading to violence is almost beyond parody. The politicians, pundits, and journalists pushing this meme are worse than soccer players and field goal kickers who drop to the ground and feign injury in hopes of getting a cheap penalty call.

When Obama talked about bringing a gun to a knife fight during the 2008 campaign, Republicans looked like fools for acting like they were on the verge of fainting. Likewise, when Sarah Palin (or prominent Democrats) use cross-hairs or bulls-eyes to indicate races they are targeting, it is silly for people to act like this means a death threat.

Grow up people.

Obviously, if any politicians or their staffers actually instigate criminal behavior, that’s a different story, but that’s almost inconceivable. I hold politicians in very low regard, and I’m perfectly comfortable in assuming lies, corruption, and other bad things. Even I would be shocked, however, to find a lawmaker willing to deliberately provoke violence.

Read Full Post »

There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely caused by demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This video explains how personal accounts can solve both problems, and also notes that nations as varied as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and Hong Kong have implemented this pro-growth reform.

Social Security reform received a good bit of attention in the past two decades. President Clinton openly flirted with the idea, and President Bush explicitly endorsed the concept. But it has faded from the public square in recent years. But this may be about to change. Personal accounts are part of Congressman Paul Ryan’s Roadmap proposal, and recent polls show continued strong support for letting younger workers shift some of their payroll taxes to individual accounts.

Equally important, the American people understand that Social Security’s finances are unsustainable. They may not know specific numbers, but they know politicians have created a house of cards, which is why jokes about the system are so easily understandable.

President Obama thinks the answer is higher taxes, which is hardly a surprise. But making people pay more is hardly an attractive option, unless you’re the type of person who thinks it’s okay to give people a hamburger and charge them for a steak.

Other nations have figured out the right approach. Australia began to implement personal accounts back in the mid-1980s, and the results have been remarkable. The government’s finances are stronger. National saving has increased. But most important, people now can look forward to a safer and more secure retirement. Another great example is Chile, which set up personal accounts in the early 1980s. This interview with Jose Pinera, who designed the Chilean system, is a great summary of why personal accounts are necessary. All told, about 30 nations around the world have set up some form of personal accounts. Even¬† Sweden, which the left usually wants to mimic,¬† has partially privatized its Social Security system.

It also should be noted that personal accounts would be good for growth and competitiveness. Reforming a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme into a system of private savings will boost jobs by lowering the marginal tax rate on work. Personal accounts also will boost private savings. And Social Security reform will reduce the long-run burden of government spending, something that is desperately needed if we want to avoid the kind of fiscal crisis that is afflicting European welfare states such as Greece.

Last but not least, it is important to understand that personal retirement accounts are not a free lunch. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, so if we let younger workers shift their payroll taxes to individual accounts, that means the money won’t be there to pay benefits to current retirees. Fulfilling the government’s promise to those retirees, as well as to older workers who wouldn’t have time to benefit from the new system, will require a lot of money over the next couple of decades, probably more than $5 trillion.

That’s a shocking number, but it’s important to remember that it would be even more expensive to bail out the current system. As I explain at the conclusion of the video, we’re in a deep hole, but it will be easier to climb out if we implement real reform.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: