Burlington High School
Burlington, Kansas
Teacher: Devra Parker
Handling Social Security: Bush’s Way
By Brandon Valentine
When people get older, they are going to need a source of income to help them get through life. Working will be too hard on most of these elderly people. Their support and life support they need is social security. President George Bush has some plans to strengthen this life source. This supplemental income does have rules to it. Understanding social security can be very difficult, so one should make sure he makes the right decision when voting for or agnist something he does not know about. One of these could get one tons of money when he is in his 60s. George Bush’s plan is important, showcasing many pros and cons to his idea.
Social Security trust funds are when the government taxes the people more than what is needed for social security. This creates a trust fund and would be used in the retirement of the baby boomers. This plan seemed to work and the government couldn’t save this money, they started using it to build highways and help fund education. The government then started to owe money to the Treasury bond. This is why the President has started the reasoning for changing social security.
Bush’s plan is to cease the social security program of plummeting towards bankruptcy. At the rate that it is heading now, social security could start running a deficit in by the year 2018. Due to the astonishing fact, the full social security benefit has raised to the age of 67, rather than 65.
The President’s plan would help ease the future flow of red ink by reducing the total amount of benefit’s the government has to pay out. This could help out the people in the long run. If we ease the future flow, then more people will be receiving more money even after the baby boomers retire. The baby boomers are the reason that this program is slowly heading down hill. Bush has the right idea but it could also hurt social security more than it helps it. The main idea of this is that in the private accounts, the money would then be invested into stocks and bonds. The money would belong to the people and be in a place where the government would have the right to take it away.
This is not a risky move for Bush, who, at the end of his term, cannot fun for another term in office. Although this is a good plan, the people who support it might not win the people’s approval. The ones voting for this can be a politically risky move if they want to be re-elected. One of the major problems of this might occur, might not solve the long-term problem. The people, who are planning to set up private accounts, can expect a lower social security payment. The cost of this project is estimated to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even possibly more!
I know a man by the name of Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was a very old man, who didn’t know that he was going to get shafted by the government. It started when his town decided that they needed a newer library. Mr. Smith thought it would be good for the local kids, but didn’t know that it was coming out of his social security! This caused Mr. Smith to not get all the money he was promised. If Bush’s plan would have been instated, Mr. Smith would have been in the stock market, where it is saved for his own usage and not the government’s. Mr. Smith sadly did not make it through life very easily. He sadly died penniless on the streets of New
York.
With all the facts presented, and the sad story of Mr. Smith, I found it hard to choose which one I think best for myself and the people of the United States of America. If I had to vote for Bush’s plan, I would proudly vote for his social security brilliance. It might have some kinks in the chain, but they could eventually be worked out. Overall, I think that it is a good plan and should lead to some major success in the future of social security. Those who argue against this might want to think of a better argument than the one they have now because it isn’t appealing to me.
Answers To Questions Prompted By The Required Reading
Q1-Explain why some people:
a. claim that there are no social security trust funds
The government taxes the people more than what is needed for social security. This creates a “trust fund” and would help pay for the retirement of the baby boomers. This plan seemed to work except, the government had to put that extra money from tax into a treasury bond, since the government couldn’t save this money. The government then borrows this money to pay for expenses. Since the government can’t save the money, there really isn’t a trust fund. We are getting taxed extra for the government’s needs.
b. claim that politicians have spent the trust fund money to run the government
Politicians use this “trust fund” money, in treasury bonds, for public transportation, education, ect…
c. claim that the trust fund money is invested
Which of the above do you agree with and why?
The claim trust money is invested into treasury bonds. Since the government can’t save it, they spend it for government projects. I agree that you can’t trust the trust fund, and that it is being borrowed by the government. I think that this system is a failure and should be modified to suit our needs and not for them to get some extra money.
Q2-When U.S Treasury bonds are sold, where does the money go and what is it used for?
The money goes to the national treasury and is used to run the government and to pay off some of the national debt.
Q3-Why do you think that social security is the only source of retirement income for 22% of those over age 65? How would you change that? Please comment if you know an elderly person who is totally dependent on a monthly social security check.
The position that the elderly people are in is the reason they have to survive on social security. Many of these elderly people have a disability or are widowed, which make them get their social security much earlier. I would make jobs for the elderly that would suit their needs so they could get some extra money to live on.
Q4-What is the average life expectancy of an American over the age 65 today?
The average life expectancy of a 65 year old would be approximately 10 years, to the age of 75.
Q5-What is the average social security benefit in your state? Is it more or less than the average benefit of the state with the largest population in the United States?
Kansas’ social security benefit is $866, which is more than the average of California, which is $849 monthly.
Q6-In 2003 what was the amount of social security income derived from interest earnings? How much from payroll taxes?
The amount of $ was around $927 per person with $435 from payroll taxes.
Q7- Who can get full retirement benefits even though they continue to earn income after attaining full retirement age and who cannot? In 2004 what was the considered “full retirement age”?
Well, if you are above age 62; then you can receive benefits. If you are born in 1937 or earlier, you can receive full benefits.
Q8- Give two examples of “Special Payments”.
Bonuses and accumulated vacations are examples of special payments.
Q9- What benefits does social security provide to people who have not yet reached retirement age?
It provides spousal benefits if your spouse is 62 years old. This also applies if they are taking care of your child who has to be 16 years old or younger. They are also divorced spousal benefits where they are eligible to receive an amount of half of their ex-spouse, if the marriage has lasted at least 10 years.1
Q10- How long does it take a worker under age 24 to be qualified to receive social security benefits?
A 24 year old would have to wait 38 years before he they could receive benefits.
Q11-Do you think the social security system needs to be reformed now? Support your answer with facts.
Yes, due to the short coming of money for the SS program. They need to make quick and effective changes.
Q12- Suppose you are a young working person. If you could opt out of the social security system and invest the portion of your pay that would otherwise be invested for you, would you choose to do so? Why or why not?
No, I think that it is the right choice to stay in due to my own unbiased beliefs.
1- Very informative--a (slight__ or heavy__) pro reform bias
2- Very informative a (slight or heavy) anti reform bias
3- Somewhat informative--a (slight__ or heavy__) pro reform bias
4- Somewhat informative--a (slight__ or heavy__) anti reform bias
5- Very little informative--a (slight__ or heavy__) pro reform bias
6- Very little informative--a (slight__ or heavy__) anti reform bias
1 (slight) www.ssa.gov
5 (slight) www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9694755/
4 (slight) www.leftbusinessobserver.com/SocialSecurityRevisited.html
1 (slight) http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/kansas.html