Star Parker's address to the Tufts Community last night was a welcome addition to the campus discourse at a time when her topic, the Social Security System, is being fiercely debated across the nation. President Bush has proposed a plan that would radically reform the Social Security system that has existed since the New Deal, creating instead an opt-in system of private accounts with access restricted by the government. Parker's position was almost eloquent in its simplicity: the current social security system, as well as welfare and public schooling, are bad for poor Americans and should be left by the wayside. Doing this, however, would plunge this nation into levels of economic instability not seen since the Great Depression, ripping apart the very fabric of civil society and pulling the rug out from under poor Americans.
Parker and many in the GOP often refer to the current Social Security system as some sort of retirement arrangement for this nation's poor. It simply isn't. It is a social insurance system designed to ensure that all elderly Americans, regardless of the money they make in their lifetime, have at least a small sum to live off of when they become unable to work. Social Security was not conceived of as a comprehensive financial solution for older Americans, simply a way to help them help themselves after a lifetime of hard work and service.
One of the main flaws in President Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security is that it doesn't address the core issue at hand: trust fund insolvency. While it is true that the Social Security trust fund will pay out more than it takes in by 2018, it will have enough money to pay full benefits until 2042. Even beyond then, the current system, with no changes, could pay close to full benefits for many years. Bush's plan would actually divert money away from the trust fund, endangering the welfare of both those who are too old to qualify for the new plan and those who choose to keep their money in the old scheme (an option offered by Bush). The United States will have to borrow a substantial amount of money to cover the costs incurred by Bush's switch, should it happen. On the other hand, a simple way of keeping Social Security solvent (and one used in the early 1980s), would be to increase the maximum amount of income on which Social Security taxes are levied from its current level just below $90,000.
Parker asserted that Social Security and Welfare threaten the moral fiber of poor Americans. Is it moral, though, to remove a financial safety net and leave our less fortunate neighbors to try to feed themselves and their children without any help from the government? Is it moral to grow rich while those in our midst grow poor? We may not be our neighbor's keeper, but we must certainly concern ourselves with his well-being. A truly compassionate and democratic nation does not gleefully pull out the safety net from under the feet of her frailest people. Now we must live up to our ideals by preserving and strengthening our Social Security System and honoring our commitment to help across generations.
