Fix Social Security With Ownership, Not More Government

The trustees for Social Security have just issued their annual report. And, as we have learned annually over recent years, the system cannot meet its obligations. According to this latest report, the Social Security system will not be able to meet its obligations to retirees by 2035. In 2035, the system will be adequate to meet just 83% of its obligations. This is supposedly good news because the projected shortfall occurs one year later than reported last year. But the change simply reflects the fact that the system is so massive -- it's the single largest government program, with annual expenditure of $1.2 trillion -- that small changes in assumptions in the planning model produce big changes in the projected results. Young people today start working and immediately have 6.2% of their paycheck deducted in payroll tax for Social Security, with their employer matching this with another 6.2% -- all paid into a system that is bankrupt. Our political leaders, to the extent they choose to speak about this issue, reiterate their commitment to “save the system.” But “saving the system” means just taking a bad situation and making it worse. Who wants to “save the system” by raising taxes, raising the retirement age or cutting benefits? Many still believe that Social Security is some kind of retirement investment program, but it's not. It is a government tax and spending program. Individuals are forced to pay the payroll tax. And those payroll taxes are used to pay retirement benefits for those currently retired. Even if you think this is a good idea, it no longer works. When the system began in the 1930s, there were over 40 working Americans per retiree. Today, because of longer life spans and declining birthrates, there are just a little over three working for each retiree. Worker's taxes soon won't be enough. I have been writing for years that the system should not and cannot be saved, and I make this same declaration now. It is quite reasonable for the government to insist that individuals take steps to secure their future in retirement. But it is not reasonable for government to step in and take away an individual freedom on how to take care of themselves. Individuals should be allowed to take ownership of the payroll tax they are forced to pay and use these funds to invest in their own personal retirement account. The benefits of giving individuals freedom to take ownership of their own earnings and invest are huge. For one thing, putting funds into the equity markets over a 45-year working life yields far higher returns than Social Security provides. In one study, done a number of years ago at the Cato Institute, they looked at a theoretical average-income couple that retired in 2009, one year after a huge crash in the stock market. Despite a 37% market decline in 2008, the cumulative returns they received since they started investing when they were 21 in 1965 yielded savings of $855,175. This is based on the actual market returns over those years, not theory. This is 75% more than what they would have gotten from Social Security, per the study. Lack of ownership in stocks greatly accounts for the huge difference in household wealth between Black households and white households. Whereas, per the Federal Reserve, 65.6% of white households own stocks, only 39.2% of Black households do. As a result, average household wealth in assets among white households is approximately $1.5 million compared to $297,000 among Black households. Plus, investing gives everyone “skin in the game” to limit government and keep our American system of capitalism alive and healthy. No move could do more to restoring economic vitality and individual freedom in our country than transforming our broken Social Security system into a nationwide personal investment program.

No, Demonstrations Today Not Like the 1960s

The current demonstrations on college campuses against Israel remind some of the unrest on college campuses during the 1960s. But the comparison is not a good one. The unrest of the 1960s was defined by the war in Vietnam and by the Civil Rights Movement. Both had practical, personal impact on young Americans in their own country. American soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam. There was real, life-and-death impact on all Americans, and certainly on young Americans. The military draft was still operative then. Despite various deferments, including deferment for university attendance, the draft was still a reality and was a looming presence for all college-age Americans. They knew they could be drafted and had friends and friends of friends who were. The official number of American soldiers killed in Vietnam stands at 58,220. Although there were legitimate moral concerns about American involvement in this war, the moral concerns were accompanied by young Americans having real skin in this game. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s also had real personal moral impact on all Americans. And youth are always highly sensitive to the moral failings around them. The reality of segregation and Jim Crow started getting national attention with the Civil Rights Movement, the activism of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference and other more violent groups in the movement. In contrast to the woke activism of today, which is totally political in character, the Civil Rights Movement was led by a charismatic and articulate Black pastor and had a religious, moral tone rooted in the Christian church. Anyone that questions this should read, or reread, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech from 1963. But King’s moral appeal was to an America very different than today. In 1965, per Gallup, 70% of Americans said religion was personally “very important” to them. In 2023, by contrast, only 45% of Americans say religion is “very important.” In 1962, per Gallup, 46% of Americans said they attended religious services over the last seven days. In 2023, this was down to 32%. During this period there were two major wars involving Israel and the surrounding Arab states. In 1967, Israel prevailed in the Six-Day War, which began with preemptive action by Israel against the Egyptian army mobilized for attack, and subsequent aggression by Syria in the North and Jordan in the East. In 1973, Israel again prevailed against attacks on these same fronts. In 1967, per Gallup, 45% of Americans supported Israel against 4% who supported the Arab states, with 26% with no opinion. In 1973, 48% of Americans expressed support for Israel versus 6% expressing support for the Arab states and 24% with no opinion. Support for Israel among Americans during this period was one-sided and clear. But, again, America today is very, very different. Our young people in the 1960s understood what personal responsibility is about. On a national level, in the 1960s, all young Americans faced the reality of military conscription. Today, regarding national obligation and service, there are virtually no demands on our youth. Now President Joe Biden is even erasing their student loan obligations. On a religious, moral level, religion then held a much stronger hold on the nation. Religion teaches and inspires a culture where individuals have a sense they belong to and have obligation to something beyond their own egotistical inclinations. Nature abhors a vacuum, and as religion has weakened and disappeared from our culture, it has been replaced by politics and the welfare state. The end of it all is we now have a generation of youth insulated from all sense of national and religious and moral personal responsibility. So now they demonstrate in support of terrorists and against the only free country in the Middle East that shares the very values that made our own country great.

In Defense of Speaker Mike Johnson

Author Herman Wouk captured well how to understand heroism. “Heroes are not supermen; they are good men who embody — by the cast of destiny — the virtue of their whole people in a great hour,” observed Wouk. We have today an American hero in the name of House Speaker Mike Johnson. Anyone with eyes open knows the world today is a very dangerous place. Johnson, a conservative Republican and a devout Christian, knows that the way for it to become even more dangerous is for the leader of the free world to withdraw from its responsibilities as such. In the face of threats from some within his own party, in the face of the possibility of a purge like that which happened to his predecessor Kevin McCarthy, Johnson stepped up, rounded up 101 Republican votes in the House and, together with Democrats, passed a $95 billion military aid bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. As a Christian, Johnson understands that there is no understanding of what freedom is without appreciation that there is good and evil in this world. Our tendency in our country is to emphasize individual rights when we think about freedom. But the equal and opposite side of rights is responsibilities. Without responsibility, whether as individuals or as a nation, freedom is gone. As President Ronald Reagan famously observed, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” Speaking to reporters after the vote, Johnson noted that this is a “critical time” and that “Xi (China) and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil.” This is not a matter of our nation aspiring to be the world’s policeman. It is matter of knowing that the force of evil cannot be ignored and the price of believing that it can be ignored only grows and becomes increasingly more dangerous. Is this a matter of focusing abroad at the expense of what is happening at home? Certainly not. If a hero, in the words of Herman Wouk, embodies the “virtue” of his or her people, how do we define the virtue of the American people? It’s about the principles of a free nation under God. We also face great danger at home as we have departed from these principles. The $95 billion that will go in aid abroad is peanuts compared to what we waste at home in spending programs that do nothing. The Biden administration has appropriated $80 billion to the IRS to bolster tax collection. But at the same time, Biden has submitted a 2025 budget to Congress increasing federal spending by some $800 billion. We are now trillions of dollars in the red as result of bankrupt entitlement programs that are basically socialism. These programs are gushing red ink because they are not about, and never have been about, American principles of freedom and personal responsibility. We, of course, need to assure that those that immigrate to our country come to embrace the principles that make our country great. But Republicans need to contend with a president and his party who have long abandoned those principles. Enough Democrats do seem to understand the importance of defending our principles abroad, and here Republicans and Democrats must work together. So it’s not a matter of either/or. Freedom is about knowing that we have choices, that there is good and evil, and we must fight evil everywhere by choosing the good. Johnson has done us all a favor through his principles and courage. We have great challenges at home, but we cannot ignore what’s happening around us. Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and host of the weekly television show “Cure America with Star Parker.” Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.