But this argument about insolvency and how much money is or will be in the Social Security Trust fund is really all so silly. It is an argument to promote an agenda that has little to do with seniors and more to do with Bush, his ownership society, and ultimately his domestic legacy alongside the likes of Ronald Reagan and FDR. Without a blockbuster of a program in his second term it is unlikely that Bush can go very far in the history books on the back of a paltry 3 or 4 percentage point tax cut for the rich. Presto! We now have partial privatization of Social Security heading the agenda upon which the President intends to spend his well-advertised political capital. Privatization, however, is advanced as a simple way to salvage a sinking system when in fact the problem has more to do with demographics than the lack of ownership.He then offers the following chart:
The chart shows that the ratio of those over 65 vs. those under (20-65) goes up 80%, or nearly doubles, between 2010-2030. Gross states the fix can "only come from employed workers and so the basic solution is to produce more workers, either through immigration or postponed retirement for the existing workforce."
What are the odds conservatives are going to endorse the promotion of more immigration? Not likely. I've said the current eligible age is LONG overdue for a bumping up (life expectancy has increased since the 50's -- now it's closer to 74).
But Gross brings up a good point with the legacy comment. However, I thought GW was secure in having Iraq as his lasting achievement for the history books?