Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Uploaded on Aug 26, 2006
U.S. Social Security (Politics in Ecolang.) - Privatizers don't like this! Best overview of U.S. Social Security debate. Vote it up!
The economy actually has a good outlook for Social Security and it stays stable as a percentage of GDP: see the Congressional Budget Office's long-term budget outlook.
The warning about the short-term Trust Fund deficit is a decoy to distract you from Social Security: It was the Bush income tax cuts that swallowed the payroll tax surpluses. (And then some!)
Tell the politicians to put taxes back the way they were, fix the healthcare system instead, and leave Social Security alone.
In another animation we will show that Social Security is the most-highly-evolved program to cover all the variables that it does so well.
Social Security probably is "efficient" -- in a COMPREHENSIVE economic sense that includes the minimization of the personal, social, and political transaction costs that must always be involved in balancing general welfare against distributional outcomes.
It's an amazingly good design for a universal safety net.
The fact that Social Security nearly "pays for itself" with a dedicated tax (the payroll tax) is very important with regard to tying together the following things, automatically: people's responsibility for a social safety-net; the life-long contribution that must require; and the final acceptance of one's personal tradeoffs regarding one's contingencies in the final outcome. So therefore, a discussion of "solvency" does have some "general welfare vs. distributional" decision attributes.
Again, Social Security is an amazingly good design for a universal safety net, and these general principles of it should be useful to the healthcare overhaul.
Still, supporters of Social Security follow the Trustee's actuarial reports, and so they accept that Social Security might need a tweak in 20 or 30 years.
P.S. Social Security is NOT "big government," and it is time to clarify the assertion. It is (relatively) big spending. But there is no bureaucracy and almost zero administrative overhead. What we DON'T want is a means-testing bureaucracy that has to deal with approximately half the retirees in every generation, with continuous political gaming by Congresspeople and lobbyists in search of money and votes. That would indeed be a big-government nightmare.