I am delighted that Senator Thompson is willing to put a specific proposal on the table during the campaign!  It would be great if all candidates did the same.

I particularly like Thompson's related, but separate, proposal which would indeed encourage a higher savings rate.  Excellent!

Personally, I'd rather see a more progressive solution on SS: so that low wage earners who have neverthless worked all their lives get a higher % return than high wage earners.  I'm not in favor of giving anyone a free ride, but I would like to promote a leveling of the playing field and reduce some of the gap between rich and poor.  But, we can debate the details another time.

---

I see that you have taken another swing at Hillary:  she "leads the pack by refusing to even discuss the matter".

Why not consider breaking the politics as usual pattern - like Thompson has done by getting specific on a controversial subject? 

It's true that Senator Clinton has been less than clear on the subject.

Let's look at Romney:

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom bluntly acknowledged that "Governor Romney has not put out a specific plan with regard to Social Security, but he has stated his opposition to raising taxes." (Boston Globe)

Or Guilani:

Giuliani explained why it wasn't worth proposing his own plan. "There are several solutions to Social Security that could get bipartisan support, but if either side comes out supporting it, it's going to get wiped out in all the political finger-pointing that is going on," he said. (Boston Globe)

Or at Senator McCain. I looked at his web site, but couldn't find any specifics.  (Perhaps I missed them.)  When asked at a campaign stop ...

McCain said politicians must work together to prevent the Social Security system from collapsing. Older Americans aren't at risk of losing their benefits, he said, but younger ones are if the problem isn't fixed.

You've got to do it in a bipartisan fashion," McCain said.

Hillary does not see Social Security as broke.

Having US send ALL OUR money to Washington 

for her to spend as she sees fit is what is is all about. 

She is not concerned about the effectiveness of

any government program, just as long as there IS a

government program.

Norbert -

OK, your point is well made.  I did indeed make a somewhat gratuitous and partisan attack against Hillary that was uncalled for (Sorry - I just couldn't help myself ;-)  when in fact ALL the other candidates (with the partial exception of Edwards) appear entirely without a meaningful position on Social Security reform.  Thompson is the first one to really stick his neck out.  BTW, I suspect he will likely get that neck chopped off for doing so.

Also,you wrote,

Personally, I'd rather see a more progressive solution on SS: so that low wage earners who have neverthless worked all their lives get a higher % return than high wage earners. 

That is worth consideing IMO.  Be aware, of course, that the incredibly complex formula for determining Social Security retirement benefits is ALREADY skewed in favor of lower income workers.  While there remains a direct relationship between the amount earned and the eventual benefit, each increase in earnings increases benefits much more for lower income workers than higher income workers.  Social Security favors lower income workers to a certain extent, and has since its ineception (which is OK IMO).

Of course, if the system were to be reformed, one possibility is to do so in a way that ADDITIONALLY favored workers at the lowest imcome levels.  You seem to support such an approach, with the addition of some sort of savings plan.  You might be suprised to learn that this was actually pretty much the proposal that the Bush administration put out last year - the one that went nowhere.  (Hey, it might be the only thing Bush ever proposed that you could support ;-)  The only difference was that the private accounts were made an integeral part of Social Security.  Thompson's saving plan appears to be separate, or mostly so.

Again, Thompson's proposal is only that - a proposal.  However, it is well worth considering IMO, and I too, like CFS, wish some of the other candidates, in both parties, would put out their own equally specific ideas.

(BTW, in pushing for Social Security reform, I am not necessarily downplaying the importance of healthcare reform - a separate issue.  However, if our politicians prove incapable of working together to craft a compromise solution for Social Security retirement reform, the outlook will be grim for solving the far more complex - and even more exepensive - problems associated with reforming healthcare, to include specifically the crushing long-term entitlement burden of Medicare/Medicaid).

MWL

I've mixed views ont his.  Of course I would like to see specific proposals from each candidate on what they would do to fix what they perceive as a problem area (and I do see SS as a problem area - it's definitely in my "top 5").

However,  presenting a plan with a reasonable amount of detail often has the result of merely painting a bullseye on the candidate's back.

I guess in the end, I'm fine with specific proposals, AND critism of the same, but we should all couch our critism of specifics with STRONGER critism candidates who have failed or refused to offer a plan with specifics.

Regarding Thompson's plan specifically (pun intended);  I personally feel SS is a ponzi scheme that is already broken.  I want to see something that tries to address the inherrent insolvency problems with SS in a manner that is not merely more redistribution of wealth (i.e., increaseing taxes on the "rich").  IMO Thompson's plan does this. 

When it comes to the issues, Thompson is my clear favorite of all candidates. Yet, I just don't see him "catching fire" anytime soon, and time is now getting short.

//mjs

Sound comments - I can't disagree with your analysis //mjs.  It is unfortunate but true that anyone who gets too specific at this point with their proposals on Social Security reform (or some other matters as well) will likely pay a heavy price for doing so.  In a way you almost can't blame Hillary for her waffling and her refusal to comment on the issue.  Say what you will about the Clintons, no one can ever accuse them of not being perceptive when it comes to political matters.

Thompson's plan may not be perfect.  But it is sounder than most, and certainly less redistributionist than most - so much so that it will likely be a tough sell politically.  Unfortunately, I would estimate that at least a full 1/3 of the US voting public is already in the redistributionist camp - believes that it is morally right for the government to take from the rich(er) and give to the poor(er) even if the ONLY reason is to "promote equality" (as in equality of outcomes).  A far greater amount would support mandatory redistributionism by government in cases of real (or perceived) "need".  Sad.

MWL

I agree with you MWL in that I applaud Thompson for having the guts to put something out there. Unlike the other chicken-sh*t candidates. Yes, it is a start, but I wanted to share something with you I find interesting. My 81 year old mother's social security COLA will increase by 2.3% next year. Guess what? Her Medicare part B premium will increase by 3.1%.

Something is wrong with this picture.

I only agree with Bilary in that fiscal responsibility (read: no pork) should come first. I also agree with removing the income cap,  even if it does affect me. I am not convinced by all of the government reports that say Social Security will be bankrupt. I just don't buy it. I feel it is a scare tactic for government to spend....no, I mean TAKE more of our money.

This "sky is falling" scenerio is a load. I live in a school district that was trying to put a levy on the ballot last year to increase school funding. It was voted down......twice. LOTS of opposition. Know what? It was interesting to note that after all of the threats of elimination of school programs that the district mysteriously found a way to reduce spending in some unnecessary areas so that a levy would not be needed. Hmmmmm........

I just wonder.......
 

You bet.  Twinlabs, you commented: 

My 81 year old mother's social security COLA will increase by 2.3% next year. Guess what? Her Medicare part B premium will increase by 3.1%.

Something is wrong with this picture.

In one sense, nothing's really "wrong" with it.  Social Security is currently designed, by law, to increase its benefits each year based on the rise of the general cost of living as measured (accurately or inaccurately, rationally or not) by the US Department Of Labor.

The cost of the Medicare part B premium must also increase every year - but at a different rate.  It is required by law to increase at a rate that will allow the total of all beneficiary premiums to pay a certain specific percentage (not all) of the total cost of what the government pays for all services under Medicare part B.  Medical costs (basic supply and demand) are increasing at a faster rate than the general overall cost of living.  So in one sense there is no mystery to any of this.

However, you see "something wrong".  What you perhaps sense is the truth that under current projections, if there is no reform and no changes, sometime around 2041 the average monthly Social Security retirement benefit will by law have to be cut immediately, across the board, by approximately 25% (and gradually reduced further in later years).  And by that time, the cost of Medicare Part B would eat up almost all of the remaining check for most recipients.  The average retiree would have his or her medical care (80% at least) covered - it would just be other things - food and electricity for example - that might pose a problem ;-)

The sky is NOT falling any time soon with regard to Social Security retirement.  In fact, one could argue it is not falling even long-term.  A 25% reduction in benefits, while unpleasant, would not be the end of the world.  (But try telling that to the public :-)   As for the Medicare part B problem - that will continue to eat into a greater portion of monthly checks, and IMO w/o sensible healthcare reform we will end up with universal, government controlled, taxpayer paid, and fully government rationed healthcare long before we reached the point I mentioned above.  Healthcare is another issue).

Social Security's eventual insolvence is inevitable without major reform (as is the eventual even worse insolvency for Medicare/Medicaid).   Unless some action is begun probably within the next 10 years or so, the end result is almost certain to be what Alan Greenspan once somewhat delicately termed while discussing this issue would be "significant economic and social disruption." 

As we have seen, not only do most of the candidates not propose a solution, many refuse to even admit to the problem.

None of this happens tomorrow.  Or even next week.

But the clock is ticking.

MWL

from above,  “My 81 year old mother's social security COLA will increase by 2.3% next year. Guess what? Her Medicare part B premium will increase by 3.1%.  Something is wrong with this picture.”

Comment:  Why is something wrong?  Is/should SS be expected to increase the same as costs?  One of the very basic premises of SS is that it was never intended to be one’s sole source of income during retirement. 

Regarding WHEN/IF SS will go broke – it’s simple demographics, made worse by the fact that politicians have their fingers in it (duh!).   I realize that changes will be made before the sky really falls (as MWL stated above), and every increase in taxes and reduction in revenues will extend the life of the system, but these “extensions” don’t mean the system isn’t broke.

//mjs

Comment:  Why is something wrong?  Is/should SS be expected to increase the same as costs?  One of the very basic premises of SS is that it was never intended to be one’s sole source of income during retirement.

MJS, I agree with you in theory but that just isn't reality. Thank goodness I am here to pay for my mom's monthly catastrophic insurance premium as well as her Part D premium. Say what you will, but my parents did the best they could raising 4 kids on a lower middle class income. They saved, but not enough.

I  still feel government fiscal restraint is in order before a reduction in benefits.

I  still feel government fiscal restraint is in order before a reduction in benefits.

Can't argue with you there.

MWL