#722 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday August 7)
Good morning,
“SOLVING” SOCIAL SECURITY
In my continued quest to suggest ways to deal with problems where we have a political logjam and/or a failure of collective will, there is Social Security. Beyond the grandstanding of both parties about the sanctity of the current system, there are solutions that have been floated to raise revenue or reduce expense; yet there isn’t the political will to do so. If we do a little bit of both, we could solve this looming catastrophe.
There are various predictions on when Social Security will run out of money. The current “best guess” is 2034—a year earlier than previously predicted. Most people labor under the mistaken belief that there is a “social security trust fund,” of a certain magnitude that we draw upon each year, while that fund is replenished by the social security tax paid by employers and employees. That is as it originally was intended. Today, it spends more than it brings in each year. There are two basic reasons for this. First, people are living longer. Second, there is not the wave of new workers that existed with the baby boomers. People are having fewer children and are having them later in life. So, revenue can’t keep up with the obligations to retirees. While the problem seems insurmountable, with a few simple changes it (and Medicare) can be made solvent again. Tell me where I’m wrong:
Raise the retirement age by a couple of years. This won’t be well-received but it would be a step returning Social Security to what it originally was intended to be. When it was instituted in the 1930s, 65 was the age chosen for it to be in effect—largely because that was the typical life expectancy. Increasing the age for when benefits would be received would simply return us to reality. We live longer and careers are longer. Raise the age to 70.
Tax more of the wages subject to the Social Security tax. Today, we only tax the first $160,000 of wages. Some people favor no upper limit. Just raise the upper limit to $300,000, for example, as a compromise. But if people are worried about burdening the middle class too much, exempt wages between $160,000 and $500,000 and then reinstitute the tax for those making $500,000-$1,000,000, for example (or some other range of income that can be agreed upon).
Increase corporate taxes to historic levels and a level consistent with other western democracies. These have been progressively lowered over the years in response to lobbying efforts. This would have the benefit of providing additional revenue to address our mounting deficit (because our lawmakers are incapable of managing the nation’s deficits without more revenue).
THINK ABOUT IT—WHY THE FORTS MUST GO
A few weeks ago, Fort Benning was renamed Fort Moore, the first fort named for a military family. It is high time the old name was abandoned.
We’ve heard a lot the names of Fort Hill, Fort Hood, Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, and others. One would expect that armed forces installations would be named for men of character and distinction, who fought nobly for our country and for the ideals we hold dear. That’s just not true in many cases. These forts were named for Confederate officers—men who committed treason against the United States.
There is a narrative to justify this practice that goes something like this: The South had recently been defeated in war and in an effort to create amity between the North and South, concessions were made to the “bravery” of those who died. Another explanation given is that friends and loved ones paid for memorials or lobbied hard for naming of federal installations, in order to honor the memory of their departed friends.
But here’s the rub… Neither of these rationalizations for naming forts for traitors is true. These memorials were not established shortly after a hard-fought war to honor friends and family who actually knew these people. These forts were named well after their namesakes receded into the mists of history. Here are a few of the forts and the dates of their naming:
Camp Beauregard, 1917
Fort Benning, 1918
Fort Bragg, 1918
Fort Hill, 1941
Fort Lee, 1917
Fort Pickett, 1942
These dates belie the notion of the nostalgic memory of anyone who knew these men. The first of these was named 52 years after the end of the war. No, these forts were named at a time of the Jim Crow South, and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. They are monuments to Confederate traitors and were named to deliver messages—the war was but a temporary setback in a more wide-ranging war of discrimination and segregation. Their naming remains a blot on our history and all of these forts should be renamed post haste.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: