Retirement Security

Maya MacGuineas, director of the New America Foundation's Fiscal Policy Program and president of the Center for Responsible Federal Budget, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee's Social Security panel on June 14.

A full text of her prepared testimony is available below in PDF format.

Remember those bumper stickers during the early-1990s fight over the Clinton health plan? "National Health Care? The Compassion of the IRS! The Efficiency of the Post Office! All at Pentagon Prices!" In American policy debates, it's a fixed article of faith that the federal government is woefully bumbling and expensive in comparison with the well-oiled efficiency of the private sector. Former Congressman Dick Armey even elevated this skepticism into a pithy maxim: "The market is rational; government is dumb."

In a 1938 address on the third anniversary of the Social Security Act, Franklin Roosevelt declared, "There is still today a frontier that remains unconquered an America unclaimed. This is the great, the nationwide frontier of insecurity, of human want and fear. This is the frontier the America we have set ourselves to reclaim." And reclaim it FDR and his fellow thinkers did.

The world today is very different than when Social Security was created. A number of issues should be considered when thinking about how to reform Social Security, including:

Should we update benefits to reflect changes in family status and economic well-being of the elderly?

Can our children really afford to finance our spending such a large portion of our life in retirement?

Should Social Security reform be used to help strengthen the economy through increased work and saving?

The debate about how to reform Social Security has been dominated by the fight over whether to create individual accounts and whether or not the system faces a "crisis." The central issue, what policy changes to make to address the system's long-term deficits, has been all but ignored. An esteemed group of experts will discuss many of the various options to fix Social Security, with no mention of accounts.

Could a reformed public pension system give citizens more control over their retirement savings, as conservatives want, without undermining security in old age, as liberals fear? Here is a proposal that does just that in the American context, although it could apply equally well to any public pension system struggling with long-term debts and an ageing population.

Here's a factual statement and two arguments about Social Security.

The factual statement is that under any retirement system, the amount of America's national wealth devoted to the elderly is going to increase, for the simple reason that the elderly percentage of the population is going to increase. Today, about 13 percent of the population is over 65; by 2030, that percentage is expected to rise to 20 percent. After that, the percentage will level off -- unless, of course, a breakthrough in geriatric medicine alters those forecasts.

Now to the two arguments.

Ever wonder why Social Security didn't crash and burn years ago? After all, for nearly all of the program's history, each generation of retirees has taken far more money out of the system than it contributed in taxes.

The answer is simple, though largely ignored in the current debate over Social Security reform. Today's retirees may not have paid anywhere near as much in taxes as today's workers do. But most contributed something far more valuable to the system: They created, raised and educated the baby boomers.

Social Security is a mess. With the oldest babyboomers now four years away from qualifying for benefits, the program faces a shortfall of $12.7 trillion. To close the deficit, the program would need to cut benefits by 27% by the time today's 25-year-olds retire. And yet in this silly season, neither presidential candidate is offering a viable solution: Kerry says he won't touch Social Security; Bush promises an expensive privatization plan that would leave individuals with huge market risks. But there's another way.

President Bush's vision of an "ownership society" expounded on the campaign trail certainly sounds good. In his travels across the country, he touts his plan to promote Americans' ability to save, invest and own their homes.

The campaign strategists may have stumbled upon a potent rhetorical device because the power of ownership has been experienced by the more fortunate families across the country. Financial success in America today increasingly requires not just a job and growing income, but the ability to accumulate a wide range of assets.