Herman Cain is a strong advocate of addressing the insufficiencies in social security both to ensure that the program can continue and to end the danger that the program represents to the national debt. He has stated that the program represents an irrefutable financial crisis. He applauded President Bush for at least attempting ro address the looming problem by allowing people to place a portion of their funds into private accounts.
To address the crisis, Herman Cain supports allowing younger people to opt out of the program and send at least a portion of that money to personal savings accounts. He states that the social security tax would still apply to facilitate the payments already owed and that anyone over 55 would be alllowed to remain in the program and receive full benefits. He does not support placing the funds into stock market accounts that are controlled by managers, but simply allowing people to place a portion of their funds into their personal accounts.
As the 2012 campaign has progressed, Cain has advocated for a system similar to the one used in Chile. This system would allow people to opt out of social security in favor of private retirement accounts.
Leadership is W.A.R.
In March of 2006, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing leadership in three areas: Working on the right problem, Asking the right questions, and Removing barriers. Part of that discussing was President Bush's attempts to address social security.
The president and his leadership team have generally worked on the right economic problems during his two terms. Early in his first term, Bush established a commission to study the Social Security system and to recommend alternatives to restructure the dysfunctional and soon insolvent program. Most recently, the president delivered a State of the Union address that was strong on national defense, but weak and misguided on domestic policy initiatives. The address included plans for yet another commission to propose solutions to the Social Security system.
The president spent the bulk of last year explaining the irrefutable fiscal crisis Social Security faces, yet many in Congress refused to consider his optional personal retirement accounts solution, while others even denied the fiscal crisis exists. The main reason the president’s effort to restructure Social Security failed last year was not because his solution was flawed. It was because the solution was poorly communicated to the public, which provided knock-kneed members of Congress the political cover they needed to avoid discussing the issue. The poor communications strategy, coupled with liberals’ over-bloated and inaccurate attacks, caused the optional personal retirement accounts solution to never gain momentum.
Spending Madness
In March of 2006 Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the spending in the federal government and a recent vote on raising the federal debt limit. He discuses the need to address entitlements as central to addressing spending.
March 22, 2006 Spending Madness in Congress
When the U.S. Senate had the opportunity last week to end the outrageous practice of robbing Social Security dollars to spend on other government programs, they voted the measure down 53 to 46. This amendment to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution would have simply required all Social Security payroll tax receipts to be used solely for Social Security benefits.
The amendment offered by Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) did not propose optional personal retirement accounts, raise taxes or reduce benefits. It simply mandated that Social Security dollars be used solely for future benefits. This would not have solved the oncoming financial crisis, but it would have been a good start. More importantly, the Senate could have shown that they recognize the dishonesty of taxing taxpayers for one purpose and then using the money for another purpose. Obviously, they have a different definition of dishonest. ...
To address the problem of exceeding the debt limit, senators could have finally acted to restructure the dysfunctional Social Security program. Mandatory spending on this and other entitlement programs accounts for more than fifty percent of federal spending, and will exceed sixty percent by 2015. The Social Security Trustees stated last year that by 2017 the program will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, and is headed toward certain bankruptcy by 2047.
Social Security Scam
In May of 2006, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the inability of Congress to address the social security shortfalls. He refers to the system as a scam.
May 17, 2006 Social Security Scam Keeps On Ticking
The Social Security Trustees issued their annual report earlier this month, and the program’s fiscal outlook is even worse than estimated last year. Yet, as predictably as May brings rain showers from Heaven and bloated supplemental spending bills from Congress, liberals in the media, the House and the Senate continue to deny that the Social Security program faces a fiscal crisis.
The 2006 Social Security Trustees Report found that the estimated year in which the program will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll tax revenues is still 2017 – just 11 short years from now. But the estimated year in which the program’s so-called “Trust Fund” – actually, paper IOUs Congress writes itself – will be completely exhausted is 2040, one year earlier than projected in 2005. Additionally, the 2006 report states that over the next 75- year period, the Social Security program will require another $4.6 trillion to pay all scheduled benefits. That amount is $600 billion higher than estimated last year.
Despite the certain and soon date when Social Security becomes insolvent, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stated, “Today’s report confirms that, despite White House scare tactics, Social Security remains sound for decades to come.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) added, “The report reinforces one basic reality – in its current form, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2040 and even after that will be able to pay 74 percent of benefits. This finding flatly contradicts Republican efforts to manufacture a ‘crisis’ in Social Security…”
This takes “They think we’re stupid” to a whole new level.
The congressional liberals’ media cronies are also engaged in crisis denial, and offer the same prescription they offer every ailing government program – increase taxes.
Editors of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune argued, “A modest increase in the Social Security retirement age, for example, coupled with a modest increase in the cap on taxable earnings would extend Social Security’s solvency significantly.” A New York Times editorial echoed, “Phasing in a modest package of benefit cuts and tax increases over the next several decades is the best way to ensure that the system won’t come up short a generation from now.” For media liberals, modesty – to the tune of a $4.6 trillion tax increase – is apparently the best policy.
The reasons Social Security faces a certain funding deficit are well documented. First, workers from the massive Baby Boomer generation will start retiring soon and begin to draw benefits. Second, people are living longer due to innovations in medical science and research into disease prevention. The average life expectancy in 1935, the year Social Security began, was just over 61 years, even though the retirement age was 65 years. This was another part of the scam. Though today’s average life expectancy has increased, liberals want to continue to raise the retirement age. At this rate, Social Security benefits are like a rabbit that most of us will never catch.
A third factor, and one not often discussed, is that Congress spends the surplus Social Security tax revenues every year on other government programs and discretionary “pork” projects. Members of Congress have been spending the Social Security surplus since the program was enacted, because the program was never intended to solely fund our retirement pensions.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1960 case Flemming v. Nestor that you have no right to receive Social Security benefits, even if you paid into the system. Maybe this is the real reason Democrats do not want to face up to the problem. They duped the public 70 years ago, and they want the scam to keep on ticking like that famous bunny that keeps on going.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 budget bill that essentially pulled back the curtain on the accounting fraud Congress has perpetrated with our Social Security dollars. The DeMint amendment would have merely required that every dollar paid into the Social Security program must be used only to pay Social Security retiree and disability benefits. Unfortunately, eight Republican Senators joined forty-four Democrats and one Independent to defeat the DeMint amendment. The rhetoric that spews from liberals of both parties on protecting the Social Security surplus and ending budget deficits is as worthless as the IOUs in the “Trust Fund.”
If members of Congress are serious about preserving the Social Security program without needlessly increasing payroll taxes or reducing benefits, they must immediately take the following three steps.
First, members of Congress must stop denying Social Security faces a solvency crisis. To deny the solvency crisis is literally akin to denying that the sun rises in the east.
Second, all members of Congress must end the raid on the surplus and pass the DeMint amendment.
Third, Congress must pass HR 1776, “The Ryan-Sununu Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act.” HR 1776 would allow workers to divert a portion of their forced payroll tax contributions to a personal retirement account they own and control. In 75 years the entire system would be solvent, without having to reduce benefits or raise taxes.
The need for “new batteries” to fix our dysfunctional Social Security system is painfully obvious to those of us not in denial. But first we must have new members of Congress who have the integrity to be honest with the public and the courage to lead.
CBS News - Unplugged
In June of 2011, Herman Cain appeared on CBS Unplugged and discussed a number of issues, including social security. He advocates for the Chilean Model again and discusses that those still in the system would have to be addressed.
BRIAN MONTOPOLI: Let's talk about entitlement programs. I know you back The Ryan Plan-- on Medicare and Medicaid. What about Social Security. What happens-- what has to happen there?
HERMAN CAIN: I believe that we've got to restructure Social Security along the lines of the Chilean model. Which is a personal retirement account option. I didn't say privatize, for those that want to demagogue the idea. I said personalization. That means like they did in Chile. You give workers the option. Option, to be able to put a portion of your Social-- your FICA tax into a personal account with your name on it, that's your money, not the government's.
And you still have to help fund those that are already on Social Security, until it phases itself out. So a personalization, personal retirement account option. Now, when they did this in Chile, nearly 30 years ago, and they gave people the option, in three years 90 percent of the workers opted to the new plan, even though they had to help phase out the old plan.
Why? They were gonna end up with more retirement dollars by having their own money in a self-directed account. This isn't open it up, where everybody can go and play Wall Street. No. You have certain controls there, to make sure people don't waste it, or abuse it.
So a personal retirement account option. If we do that, when we do that, we will be able to become solvent, and eventually phase out the current Social Sec-- Security system we have. Because we cannot sustain it long-term. That's part of what I talk about when I say we've got to go from an entitlement society, to an empowerment society.
When you allow people to have a personal retirement account, you empower them. When you force them to stay on Social Security, and we don't fix the problem, it forces people to stay hooked on that entitlement program.
Illegal Aliens and Social Security
In July of 2006, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing a "dirty little secret" about social security. He notes the taxes paid by illegal aliens going to social security while those people are not eligible for social security.
July 19, 2006 Illegal Dirty Little Secrets about Social Security
There are two dirty little secrets behind the debate over illegal aliens that even the advocates of securing the borders first have failed to discuss. The first secret is that the estimated 12 to 20 million aliens living and working illegally in the United States have to commit identity theft to secure employment. The second secret is that, without illegals' payroll tax contributions, filed under stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers, the Social Security system would collapse years earlier than estimated.
Hard to believe, here are the facts.
The birth of the connection between illegal aliens, identity theft and the Social Security system began in 1986. That year Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which required workers to show a Social Security card to obtain employment. IRCA also made it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented workers. The consequence of IRCA is that millions of stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers have been used in the past 20 years. IRCA did nothing to curb illegal aliens from crossing our borders to find work, nor to end employers' demand for their labor.
A 2006 General Accounting Office (GAO) study reports that the Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains a database called the Earnings Suspense File (ESF) to track fraudulent use of Social Security numbers. When an employer files payroll taxes for an employee, and the employee's name and Social Security number do not match or the number does not exist in Social Security's records, the unmatched or fraudulent number is recorded in the ESF. Though estimates of illegal aliens present in the U.S. range from 12 million to 20 million, as of November 2004 the ESF contained over 246 million records.
The GAO also reports that 43 percent of employers that file payroll taxes on stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers represent just five industries. Further, 8,900 employers, which is 0.2 percent of all employers with reports in the ESF database, have submitted over 30 percent of the ESF's total records.
According to a 2005 report by MSNBC technology correspondent Bob Sullivan, the ESF represents $420 billion in payroll tax contributions. Illegal aliens who work under stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers will never receive Social Security benefits, so the hundreds of billions of dollars they contribute represent what Sullivan rightly calls "essentially free money to the system." Eduardo Porter reported in the New York Times that payroll taxes from illegal aliens represent approximately 10 percent of the so-called Social Security surplus.
Enforcement of labor and immigration law is further hamstrung by a Byzantine bureaucratic nightmare constructed by Congress in an effort ironically designed to protect privacy. Under current law, the SSA is barred from sharing information in the EFS with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because it contains taxpayer records. Congress has enabled massive invasion of our privacy by encouraging identity theft and not allowing DHS to effectively investigate employers and employees suspected of labor and immigration law infractions. Even though the EFS contains 246 million records of stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers, in 2004 DHS only initiated 5,400 investigations of employers or workers suspected of breaking labor or immigration laws.
Illegal aliens represent cheap labor for employers and billions of dollars to the government to temporarily prop up the failing Social Security system. Congress is not only doing nothing to restructure Social Security, but its wink-and-nod policy toward illegal aliens and their employers encourages massive identity theft and ruined financial standing for millions of Americans.
Common sense solutions exist, but the political will to enact them is missing. First, Congress must allow DHS access to the ESF files. The ESF files would literally provide DHS the roadmap to employers and workers guilty of breaking labor and immigration laws. It’s not just law enforcement. It’s a matter of national security.
Second, Congress must increase and enforce penalties on employers of illegal aliens. Most employers want to obey the law, but the laws have to be enforced.
Third, we must secure our borders. That does not mean sending a few thousand members of the National Guard to assist border patrol agents. We must also secure the most porous areas of the border with whatever means necessary, or legal American citizens will continue to fall prey to massive identity theft.
Illegal aliens present a challenge to national security, and a false sense of temporary security to our failing Social Security system. Failure to fix the problem just makes the problem worse.
That’s not a secret. It’s common sense.
Social Security was a Good Idea
In September of 2007, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing entitlements and big government. He states that while social security was a good idea, it failed the moment that the money was taken and used for other purposes.
... Social Security was a good idea until the politicians changed the law to allow Social Security contributions to be used for general federal spending. And when Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma introduced a bill in the Senate to require use of Social Security funds only for Social Security benefits, it was overwhelmingly defeated. So much for a bold idea that went bad. ...
Hillary's Plan
In October of 2007, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing Hillary Clinton's proposed plan for the Presidency. He spoke about how the social security system has failed.
October 10, 2007 This Week’s Hillary Giveaway: ‘American (Socialist) Retirement Accounts’
Less than a month after Hillary Clinton proposed giving every child born in the United States a $5,000 gift, she told a crowd in Iowa last week that she now wants to give families $1,000 in annual matching funds into a 401(k) retirement account. Of course, all of this giveaway money would come from the government after she confiscates more money from the evil rich.
According to a report from the Associated Press’s Nedra Pickler, to qualify for this annual gift toward your retirement, you need to make $60,000 a year or less, or not be working at all. If you make between $60,000 and $100,000 your annual gift is $500 instead of $1,000. If you make over $100,000, you do not get a gift because you are part of the evil rich.
Other than being another idea that fits the communist manifesto, this latest idea ignores the broken promises of Social Security and adds another layer to the politics of envy. Of course, Hillary and her followers would describe it as simply taking from the greedy and giving to the needy.
The communist manifesto says, “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” So in addition to Hillary health care and Hillary baby care (although she now says that idea is off the table), we now have Hillary retirement care. She calls this progressive thinking. I call it a prescription for faster economic disaster. All you have to do is look at where federal spending is headed right now if Congress continues to do nothing.
Social Security was supposed to be that safety net for our retirement. It was supposed to be an assistance program, but it has grown into a dysfunctional entitlement program. To that issue, Hillary says her “American Retirement Accounts” should not be used to replace any part of Social Security and that she is committed to addressing the long-term challenges of that program.
In other words, let’s just put aside the fact that the average person never receives at least what he or she contributed to Social Security before death, or the fact that the money is being used for other government spending, and by 2017 the Social Security taxes coming in will be less than the promises of benefits going out.
Hillary claims people need help because they aren’t making enough to save, although she doesn’t seem to have a problem taking the FICA tax out of their paychecks. So with the help of the rich, Hillary is going to encourage families to save some more of their already overtaxed income by giving them back some of what they have already been taxed. What a deal!
Hillary and the other Democratic presidential candidates believe they can legislate financial security, health and happiness for people from the cradle to the grave. And when one idea or program does not work, don’t fix it or get rid of it, just throw some more money at another idea that panders to the politics of envy.
This country suffers from an entitlement mentality that encourages politicians to make more and more promises to get elected, because they realize that voters are less and less informed. The outdated tax code is their weapon of choice to try to fulfill those promises, and taking more from the rich is still their most popular target.
The Declaration of Independence says, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It does not say a guarantee of happiness regardless of how hard you try, or of the risks you are willing to take to achieve happiness. It does not say income should be taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people.
It says happiness is the result of individuals’ aspiration, motivation and determination using their own sweat equity, not someone else’s.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president and delivers on all of her promises, there will be nothing else to give away. On second thought, she’ll find something.
Daily Caller Interview
On October 11, 2010 Herman Cain was interviewed by the Daily Caller. He spoke about social security and stated that he supported personal retirement accounts, not privatization.
Take a simple example: Social Security,” Cain told TheDC in a phone interview. “To George Bush’s credit, he tried to get personal retirement accounts, not privatization. He tried to get that system passed, which was going to put the Social Security system on a road to solvency. He could not generate enough political will to do that. The Democrats hated the idea, and many of the Republicans didn’t back him as strongly as they could have and they should have and, as a result, Social Security is still where it was eight years ago.”
Cain said he’d push for a personal retirement accounts and can’t believe Republicans in Washington aren’t pushing for that type of program.
“As soon as a Republican raises the idea of personal retirement accounts, they get attacked,” Cain said. “Even President [Barack] Obama has attacked the Republicans [for personalized retirement accounts]. They [Democrats] are already attacking it before it becomes an actual proposal. It can’t become a proposal until Republicans take control of Congress.”
Campaign Event - Chilean Model
In March of 2011, Herman Cain spoke at a campaign event and discussed his opinion that the social security model should be moved to a personal account retirement system similar to the one used by the nation of Chile. He notes that in Chile, 90% of workers chose personal accounts instead of social security and the same thing can be done here in the US. This would be more of a forced retirement savings system in which people are required to save a set percentage of money.
Fox News Appearance
In April of 2011, Herman Cain appeared on Fox News and discussed a number of issues relating to the economy and the 2012 Presidential campaign. When asked about social security, Cain advocated for using the Chilean model and model away from an entitlement society and towards an empowerment society.
SHANNON BREAM: Alright, will part of the tough solutions and will the strong medicine include entitlement reform? And how do you sell that to the American public?
HERMAN CAIN: We have to go from an entitlement society, to an empowerment society. And what I mean by that, all programs need to be restructured. You can't just continue to raise taxes on these programs and decrease the benefits. And Representative Ryan's proposed budget is a great start in that direction. We can't just continue to do the same things we've done before.
For example, relative to Social Security. I think that we put the idea of personal retirement accounts back on the table and do what Chile did thirty years ago. They don't have the problem we have today. Now it got demagogued last time as privatization. That absolutely is not the case. We need to take that route, restructure Social Security so we can achieve solvency, or the problems we're encountering, the crisis that we now have, they're only going to get worse.
Nevada News and Views
In May of 2011, after the first Presidential debate, Herman Cain was interviewed by the Nevada News and Views. When asked about balancing the budget, he talks about the need for entitlement reform to accomplish this objective.
Reporter: What is President Herman Cain’s solution for the national debt and our deficit?
Cain: First, implement the kind of five-point plan that I talked about. In the second two years of my first term, replace the entire tax code with the fair tax to supercharge this economy. We can’t just stimulate the economy and sit back. We have to establish an advantage on the rest of the world and the fair tax would give us that advantage.
I would require an across-the-board 10% cut in federal spending in every agency except defense. The only reason I exclude defense is because the world is not safe. You got all these nut cases out there, pipsqueak potentates, rattling their sabers so we’re going to cut defense.
I would restructure Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Trimming around the edges is not going to work. For example, take Social Security. The only thing that this administration and the previous administrations have done for the last several decades is decrease benefits, raise the retirement age, or increase taxes. How about restructuring it using personal retirement accounts? I didn’t say privatization. The country of Chile did it 30 years ago. They don’t have a Social Security problem anymore. Every worker has an individual personal retirement account. We can get to the same point if we stop demagoguing and saying it’s going to privatize Social Security, it’s going to hurt old people, children, and puppy dogs.
Las Vegas Sun Interview
On May 6, 2011 Herman Cain was interviewed by the Las Vegas Sun. He again pointed to the need to address entitlements to get the economy going. He also noted his desire to see younger people be given an opportunity to opt out of social security.
How will you create jobs and improve the economy?
First, lower corporate tax rates from 35 to 25 percent, and also bring individual tax rates to a maximum top rate of 25 percent. Second, take capital gains tax rates to zero. Third, suspend taxes on repatriated profits. Four, I would propose a real payroll tax holiday. The piddling 2 percent that the Obama administration and Congress passed has not done anything. I’m proposing 6.2 percent for all workers and for employers for a year. Five, make the rates permanent. I would restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security, for example, I would create a personal retirement account option for the younger people who want that option. They would still have to continue to contribute to pay the benefits for those who are too close to 65 or 70. They’d put half of their contribution into a personal, self-directed account that is able to grow with conservative investments. Chile did it 30 years ago; they don’t have a Social Security problem anymore.
New Hampshire Debate
In June of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the Presidential debate in New Hampshire. He was asked about social security and discussed his support for a Chilean model.
DISTASO: Thank you, John.
Mr. Cain, back to you. And while you're fired up there, let's turn to Social Security. Can you be specific regarding ages and income levels? Everyone talks about reform. What is your specific Social Security reform plan in regards to raising the retirement age, at what ages, cutting benefits and what income level means testing kicking in?
Thank you.
CAIN: Let's fix the problem and that is to restructure Social Security. I support a personal retirement account option in order to phase out the current system. We know that this works. It worked in the small country of Chile when they did it 30 years.
That payroll tax had gotten up to 27 percent for every dollar that the worker made. I believe we can do the same thing. That break point would approximately 40 years of age.
Now, young people realize they still got to contribute to the current system for those people that are on Social Security, that are near Social Security.
DISTASO: Are you going to raise the retirement age as president of the United States?
CAIN: I don't have to raise the retirement age, because that by itself isn't going to solve the problem. If Congress decides to do that, that's a different matter.
Here's -- let me give you one another example where this approach has worked. The city of Galveston, they opted out of the Social Security system way back in the '70s. And now, they retire with a whole lot more money. Why? For a real simple reason -- they have an account with their money on it.
What I'm simply saying is we've got to restructure the program using a personal retirement account option in order to eventually make it solvent.
Reagan Debate
In September of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the Republcian debate at the Reagan Library. He talks about his plan for social security.
CAIN: Do you want to hear some more rhetoric or do you want to hear a solution?
I happen to believe that yes, Social Security, it needs fixing, not continuing to talk about it. I believe in the Chilean model, where you give a personal retirement account option so we can move this society from an entitlement society to an empowerment society.
Chile had a broken system the way we did. Thirty years ago, a worker was paying 28 cents on a dollar into a broken system. They finally awakened and put in a system where the younger workers could have a choice. A novel idea.
Give them a choice with an account with their name on it, and over time we would eliminate the current broken system that we have. That is a solution to the problem. Rather than continuing to talk about how broken it is, let's just fix it using the Chilean model.
TEA Party Debate
In September of 2012, Herman Cain participated in the TEA party Republican Primary debate. He spoke about the need to fix social security and his support for private accounts in the Chilean model.
BLITZER: All right. Hold that thought for a minute, because I want Herman Cain to get involved.
Are you with Governor Perry that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?
CAIN: I don't care what you call it, it's broken. And here's my solution.
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: Start with optional personal retirement accounts. In 1981, the Galveston County employees, they opted out because that was a very short window of opportunity. They took it. Today, when people retire in Galveston County, Texas, they retire making at least 50 percent more than they would ever get out of Social Security.
(APPLAUSE)
Secondly, allow younger workers to have personal retirement accounts as an option.
Now, to answer this gentleman's question, current seniors will not be affected. It's to give the option to the younger workers.
The Galveston County model worked, and it also worked in the small country of Chile. Instead of giving it to the states, let's give it back to the workers. That's what personal retirement accounts will do.
2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements
Chapter Five: Modernize Social Programs
Big government enthusiasts designed social programs to provide a financial safety net, but, in turn, dependency on the government for the most vulnerable in society became an expected entitlement. Decades since their inception, far too many Americans have shifted their expectations from government assistance to entitlement. Too many people have exchanged their freedom for a false sense of security that these programs are perceived to provide.
Unfortunately, this has not only been to the sociological detriment of America, but also to its economic detriment. Simply, ever-expanding social programs are compromising the current and future financial stability of this great country. According to a May 2009 article in Newsweek, current projections indicate that Medicare will go bankrupt by 2017 and Social Security will bottom out by 2037. These figures are advanced from 2008’s estimates, which forecasted Medicare’s bankruptcy to occur in 2019 and 2041 for Social Security. Some experts believe these programs’ demise will arrive even sooner.
For the generations who have paid into Social Security and Medicare, the federal government’s inevitable failure to pay them as they retire is undeniably stealing. These are generations who have worked and sacrificed to leave this country a better place for their children and grandchildren, and we have an obligation to make certain that their financial futures are secure. The current behavior of an out of control federal government does little to ease their minds. It’s also imperative that we revamp our social and welfare programs, so America’s less fortunate can be offered a “hand-up” instead of a “handout.” The government should help people to be able to help themselves.
We must return to free market-based solutions that empower our nation’s workers to take control over their professional and retirement futures. It is essential that we modernize our Social Security and Medicare programs, which began in 1935 and 1965, respectively. What worked then will not work today, and the government has a responsibility to support America’s Golden Age population by empowering them instead of restricting them.
