When President Bush proposed reforming Social Security in 2005 by privatizing accounts and decentralizing the system, he received unanimous criticism from both sides of the aisle. Members of the older population fought hand-in-hand with interest groups like AARP to harpoon this conservative leviathan. Yet since then, no one has touched the problem. Ignoring the issue will not make it go away.
One cannot sweep something as large and important as Social Security under the rug.
Economists and pundits alike agree that if a great change does not occur in social security, it will die. But Congress will not address it due to its incendiary nature and the expected backlash from Baby Boomers in the polls.
When Social Security was given life by FDR in 1935, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax was imposed in order to pay for it.
Essentially, this payroll tax is designed to cover the costs of Medicare and Social Security.
However, Social Security is not insurance; it is an entitlement.
It is this mindset that is killing Social Security. Sure, when it was founded in 1935, 26 workers were paying for one senior, versus today where two workers are paying for the same senior.
Sure, more and more people are dipping into the pot. Nevertheless, the problem is not that older Americans are trying to cover their costs - it's that older Americans who can cover their costs are dipping in as well.
One must have heard the stories that white-shoe lawyers, well-established doctors - even corporate giants, whose seven-figure salaries should more than cover their golf games - still collect Social Security. One might argue, "Wait a minute, I paid into Social Security, and I want all my money back."
But the hardest part of fixing the problem is psychological, not fiscal. If Social Security were insurance, providing funds to the poorest seniors who need it the most - and keeping payments on a progressive, graduated scale, rather than an egalitarian system that will eventually crumble - the problem would most likely go away.
And so, I ask our 535 Senators and Representatives to touch this "third-rail" of politics. Yes, it might be dangerous, and getting the ball rolling will be difficult.
But the reason Social Security is the "third-rail," and not a firestorm, is because the third-rail is where the power is.
Imagine hitting the campaign trail in two, four or six years, and saying, "I am the one who fixed Social Security."
And to those Democrats on the campaign trail who continue to spout the same party line about universal healthcare and education, maybe try shaking things up a bit.
Mike Gravel (D-Ala.) of Alaska proposes scrapping the income tax system for a pervasive sales tax. Maybe someone can propose fixing Social Security.
I'm sure the many seniors who are going to vote in 2008 will not let their own fiscal solvency go unnoticed.
Dave Adams is a freshman who has not yet declared a major. He can be reached at David.Adams@tufts.edu.
