|
The first
thing that has to be noted is that politicians are not known to keep their
election promises. President Donald Trump is now – whether he likes
it or not – a politician. So, we have to assume that he will be
motivated less by what he wrote and said in the past than by political
expediency.
The second
thing that has to be noted is the lack of attention given to this important
issue during the election campaign. At the time, both contenders -
Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton - realized the divisiveness of this issue and
the serious clout of the senior population. It’s a hot potato issue
that even debate moderators were afraid to broach. On Mr.
Trump's website there was a list of more than a dozen topics that
he offers his solution. Missing is – try to guess - any reference to social
security. Nada. Gornisht. Bubkes. Social Security is,
without a doubt, the third rail for politicians and they keep a safe
distance from it.
Nevertheless,
we should look at the few pre-election statements of Mr. Trump and see what
his strategy is on this critical issue for nearly all seniors: Social
Security.
The
Republican Party’s position is to privatize more of the Social Security
program. The appeal has been, for the past few decades, to allow
younger people greater control over how much and where to invest the monies
they set aside for their retirement years. Implementing such a
proposal would soon bankrupt Social Security.
Mr. Trump
has clearly stated in a variety of talks and writings that he does not
intend to alter the social security program - so far so good. But it
is hard to reconcile this position with his other proposals: spend more
money and cut taxes. The question you have to ask yourself is: how
then will the deficit be cut? How will Social Security (and Medicare)
survive in such an environment?
If things
are left alone – as Mr. Trumps has repeatedly suggested - the Social
Security nest egg will run out in 14 to 18 years, depending on whose
projection you accept. That means that one way or another someone is
going to have to offer a solution to the problem of us living longer (good
news) and its corollary that there will be no money in the Social Security
basket for our children, and certainly for our grandchildren (bad news).
The
knowledgeable consensus is that he will come around and embrace the
privatization outlook outlined by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Not only
because Mr. Trump will seek Congressional allies, but he had initially
chosen Mr. Reince Preibus to be his Chief of Staff. Mr. Preibus was
formerly the Chairman of the Republican Party, an ally of Mr. Ryan, and
like Mr. Ryan, a Wisconsinite.
Mr. Trump
has written that he regards Social Security as a “deal.” It is an
agreement reached between the American government and the working people.
He underscores that he does not view the program as a form of
entitlement. But we all know that our President believes that a
“deal” that he doesn’t like, though signed by a previously elected
administration, can be abrogated. He is on record on that promise.
A “wait
and see” approach is the only recourse we may have (other than bombarding
the White House with our concerns). But in the meantime, I would
recommend we look for alternative financial strategies for us, our
children, and our grandchildren.
Have any thoughts on
the issue? Share them with us
at www.MatureAging.com, and we may
post them (only after getting your permission) in a future edition.
Till next time,
Josh
|
Comments
Post a Comment