Essays
 

Some Rablings on Social Security
An Essay by Geoffrey L. Breedon

With all the talk these days about the possibility of President Bush pushing forward some form of Social Security reform, I thought it might be useful to use this space for a bit of a thought experiment attempting tease out a possible Integral response to the issue. By extension this will become a rumination about other government programs as well, particularly those related to the elderly.

First off, what is out goal? What is it that we really want to accomplish? Not what does SS accomplish today, but why have we created it in the first place? And why have we created Medicare?

It seems to me that what we want to accomplish is to provide the causes and conditions for the elderly in our nation to live long, healthy, productive, rewarding, and financially secure lives.

What are the factors that might contribute to the accomplishment of that goal? Let's start with the typical Integral aspects, the psychological, the physical, the cultural, and the social.

What are the psychological aspects involved? What is it that people over 65 (the age of Social Security and retirement) are looking for personally? A sense of financial security, to be sure, but they are also looking for ways to ensure that their remaining years are fulfilling, emotionally, intellectually, and creatively. They are looking for love, companionship, and connection with family and community. They are looking for a sense that their lives have purpose after retirement from the workforce. They are also looking for alternatives for the direction of their lives now that work is not the driving force behind the organization of their lives.

What about the physical aspects of the situation? People are living longer, but more people need assistance from the government to manage the financial burden of their medical care. And as we live longer, certain diseases, like Alzheimer's, become more prevalent. How do we keep people healthy and living as long as possible? How do we encourage prevention, which begins earlier in life, and at the same time deal with the medial issues that affect the elderly of today?

What are the retirees looking for culturally? In part, to preserve a sense of their own culture, the culture of their particular generation, but also to understand and participate in the culture of the current generations. How do the current generations that dominate the nation's culture either value or undervalue the past and present contributions of the older generations? How can we encourage dialogue and exchange between the generations?

What about the social aspects of the problem? How do we ensure the financial security of the elderly without bankrupting the younger generations? What legal and physical infrastructure do we need to provide in order to create the conditions where by the elderly can be live without fear of poverty? How do we deal with the financial costs of today's social security programs, while preparing for the rising costs for future generations of retirees?

Okay, so those are some of the questions informing the discussion. And there have been a lot of possible solutions tossed about so far. One solution that is suggested is raising the retirement age of 65 to 68 or 70. The logic is that the 65 age limit was set when people rarely lived that long. The problem is that many companies are already pushing early retirement as a means of reducing employment roles and in tight economic times with competitive job markets there seems little likelihood that retirees would find work for those extra years.

The other big suggestion is to allow people to take a portion of the money they are paying into social security and create personal investment accounts with it. The idea is that people will be able to have more money at retirement time by investing wisely in the stock market with the extra money from this account. It is a great boon for investment firms and potentially for some retirees. There are several problems with this of course, not the least of which is that people paying into social security now are paying the benefits of those receiving it now. It's a pay as you go system. So, retirement accounts would remove money from that system. To pay the obligations of social security and reduce the income to the social security coffers simultaneously requires either making current benefits smaller, or raising the social security tax levied on today and tomorrow's workers. There is also the question of what to do if the stock market tanks, or in situations where people have not invested wisely and are left with less money than they would have had under traditional social security.

By and large, these suggestions, as well as others, are not really very bold or very likely to help the elderly.

So, with all this as background, why don't I try to sketch out something I hope is an integral response to the problem? I'll make a series of suggestions concerning the different aspects of the problem. When possible I'll try to look at these locally, regionally, and nationally.

First, we clearly define what we are trying to do. We are trying to provide the causes and conditions for the elderly in our nation to live long, healthy, productive, rewarding, and financially secure lives.

Suggestions:

• We leave the retirement age at 65.
• We continue to pay retirees a set payment based in part upon how much they have contributed/ earned over the years.
• We continue contribution to social security based on payee income. The more you earn, the more you pay.
• We raise the cap on income taxed for social security from $90,000 to $1,000,000.
• We raise the social security tax just slightly on everyone by .5%. We raise it by 1% on those earning more than $200,000 a year, and by 1.5% on those earning more than $500,000.
• We ask those retirees with a net worth greater than five million dollars to opt out of receiving social security payments.
• Instead of siphoning off money we would pay into social security for personal accounts used to play the stock market, we increase the yearly possible contribution of IRAs to $5000, making the amount placed in the account tax deductible, and all income removed after age 65. Depending on the financial viability we consider making all withdraws after age 65 tax exempt as well.
• In order to pay for the increasing numbers of retirees we need to have an economic base capable of supporting it. This will mean either increasing the earning potential of younger citizens paying into the system now, or increasing the number of younger citizens paying into the system. The first option requires rethinking education, training, job creation/job export, and employment in general, and the second option requires rethinking immigration. A third option, which is what I would advocate, would push for a combination of both; increasing legal immigration and promoting higher paying jobs in all sectors (which would be tied to the idea of a mandatory living wage- based on regional economic factors). This may also require other economic decisions such decreasing federal funding for defense and other programs to pay for the costs (see my previous blog on why defense contactors should be nonprofit companies).
• We require retirees receiving social security checks to volunteer in their local community for a nonprofit organization, school, or community project for at least 10 hours a month.
• We offer to increase the monthly payments of any retiree who volunteers more than ten hours per month. Payments would be increased by 3-5% for every ten hours per week, up to 40 hours a week. Thus retirees who volunteered for 40 hours a week would receive an increase of 12-20%.
• Healthcare for all elderly on social security would be covered. For this to work financially, the entire healthcare system would need to be restructured. I'll write about this in detail later, but in general it would comprise the following parts: a) all healthcare providers and drug companies would be required to be nonprofit companies; b) Healthcare providers would act as health insurers, cooperating with local, state, and federal government. Enormous costs reductions would result from removing profit from the healthcare system. Additional costs would be saved by removing insurance companies. Everyone would pay a progressive health insurance tax based on health and income. The healthier you are, the less you pay, the sicker you are, the more you pay. Likewise, the poorer you are, the less you pay, and the wealthier you are, the more you pay. This money would be collected in three increments: locally, statewide, and federally. Thus wealthy communities could be self-sufficient and poorer communities would have funds available to make up the difference of their expenses. It would provide for two doctor visits, natal care, all hospitalization, 90% of typical drug costs, and 100% of catastrophic drug costs. It would cover completely without charge those living below the poverty line and their children. Those over 65 years of age would enjoy extended benefits to ensure preventative medicine is available when needed. These benefits would also extend to mental healthcare, providing for at least ten therapeutic visits a year, or fifty over the course of five years.
• A national education program would be started to help the different generations develop respect for each other as well as reliance upon each other. It would particularly be aimed at ensuring that the elderly are respected and involved members of our communities and our nation.
• We create a national program that helps retirees organize social clubs and organizations to foster both greater connection between retirees, and greater retiree interaction in the local community.
• We encourage spiritual and religious organizations to reach out to the elderly in their communities.

Well, those are some ideas. Just sketches. And vague sketches at that. At some point I'll need to figure out the numbers to back it up. The problem with my suggestions, and the problems with all of my suggestions in general, is that they are interrelated with other issues and dependent upon change in different areas. You can't talk about social security without talking about healthcare, immigration, jobs, the economy, etc. and any discussion that excludes them is limited and will produce limited and possibly dangerous solutions. But, it was a nice exercise and hopefully I can refine it in the future.