Since Everybody Has Screwed Up Social Security By Living So Long, Everybody Has to Work to Fix It

Robert Samuelson in WaPo remarks that think tanks have been silent on the need for reform of entitlements to older Americans. His diagnosis:

“For think-tank scholars, brutal candor might offend friends and political mentors. For the ambitious, it might jeopardize future appointments to top government jobs.”

His proposed solution:

“As an antidote to this timidity, I propose that some public-spirited sugar daddy (the MacArthur Foundation? Warren Buffett?) sponsor a short book. A possible title: ‘Facing Up to an Aging America.’ Six leading think tanks would be invited to participate: three liberal -- the Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Urban Institute-- and three conservative: the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

After an introduction describing America's aging, each think tank would receive 35 pages to respond to questions and to present its vision. Are the looming budget changes good for America? If so, how would they be financed? If not, why not? How could adverse consequences be avoided? The think tanks would be expected to be specific. Higher eligibility ages? Well, how much and when? Higher taxes? Which ones and how much? If a think tank rejected the invitation, the publisher would run 35 blank pages and an explanation: ‘Think tank X declined to participate.’”

Frankly, I reckon that it’s a no-brainer that the eligibility age for Social Security should be raised to reflect the realities of longer life expectancies, healthier and more youthful sexagenarians, and the need to restrain the spiraling costs of entitlements to the elderly. Yet, for a politician to speak of this is political suicide. Oldsters themselves feel threatened, and not so oldsters such as myself worry about having to take care of our aged parents and maybe have them move in with us. Most folks want Social Security for themselves and for their parents, and they are suspicious of attempts to scale back the entitlement programs. Nobody wants the system to collapse (almost nobody), but nobody trusts politicians to fix the system.

I reckon that a national dialogue initiated and moderated by someone other than politicians is wanted, and think tanks could well be part of this. I would like to see invitations to the public to meet to discuss and work through the issues in their churches and community centers and homes. Let us address as citizens the underlying assumptions and values that go into the design and implementation of the Social Security system and decide what we are trying to accomplish in the first place and how much we are willing to pay for it. Let us engage in an intergenerational dialogue so that we understand one another as direct recipients, indirect beneficiaries, and as taxpayers.

Perhaps the think tank reports could be incorporated into workbooks that citizens could use to structure their study groups and discussions. This process will educate citizens about the issues, the potential problems, and the range of solutions and will permit diverse constituencies to air their concerns.

The results of the study groups, especially if they represented a large cross section of society, would be harder for politicians to ignore than the publications from think tanks.