A Social Security Gamble
Social Security is in crisis - I only know this because the President told me so. He told everyone else, too, but I was paying attention. I always listen to people standing in front of file cabinets. I'm a good listener. If I hadn't listened to the President then I would have assumed that everything was just fine, but alas I had to take down my secret FDR prayer wall complete with a life size replica of the former president's beloved dog Fala. Occasionally I do lapse and take Fala out of storage to play for an hour here and there.
The main problem with Social Security is that it is out of step with the times. It's been around since the 1930s. That was before TVs, MP3s and even X-Boxes. Back then the president was in a wheelchair! No wonder there was so much depression. At least now we have the courage to elect a president who can run a mile in a decent time. Instead of voting on the first Tuesday in November every four years, why don't the nominees duke it out in a 10K. With that arrangement Jeff Gillooly could be busting kneecaps for a much bigger payday than Tonya Harding ever promised. Third party candidates would be allowed to race, too, but race rules would prevent them from starting until and hour after the starting gun. Even then, they may not get official racing bibs.
Regardless of how fast the president can run, the Social Security crisis cannot be averted and the proverbial feces and fan commingling is due to strike right around the time I enter my "golden years." The time to act is now.
One means of fixing Social Security is to raise the age at which the benefits are paid out. This is all well and good, but why not go a step further - make "Upon Death" the age at which one is eligible for benefits? Sure, there would be some short-term gain, but really what have older folks ever contributed to society? Besides, the fund would be solvent in time for my retirement.
The main drawback to this plan is that baby boomers would be forced back into living with their children. I, for one, couldn't survive the countless references to how the bands and protests were better "back in my day."
We could always euthanize the Baby Boomers when they get over a certain age. After all, it is because there are so many of them that the Social Security fund is drying up. This would also lessen the burden on the current system, while removing its least productive members who, let's face it, don't have much of a future. That wouldn't play out very well politically, especially since old people vote. With all the old boomers gone and no one going to the polls on Election Day except evangelical Christians, who's to say that George W. Bush wouldn't become king after a special election? The Bush twins would only be a heartbeat away from the monarchy with Dick Cheney in a pickle jar clinging on to the Vice-Monarch title.
Since Bush is not yet a king, he is forced to convince the masses that his Social Security plan is a humdinger. It's kind of like "Twelve Angry Men" in the way that Henry Fonda convinced everyone that the defendant was innocent - only Bush invites the choir before he starts preaching. So far the President's plan has revolved around the "tom-a-to/tom-ah-to" debate over whether younger workers should invest in "private" or "personal" accounts. I prefer "funnel accounts," as in our money will be funneled toward some brokerage house with a history of political contributions. The basic idea behind "funnel accounts" is this: people under 55, armed with a copy of "Investing for Dummies" and the dim memory of panning for gold in the NASDAQ circa 1999 ("there's gold in them thar stocks!") would be allowed to invest their Social Security funds in anticipation of reaping the benefits of private investing. Thus, we won't be living check to check but portfolio earning statement to portfolio earning statement. Somehow this is supposed to keep Social Security going well past the expiration date of the Patriots XV-eth Super Bowl win in a row. Financial writers are already champing at the bit to write the "definitive" Social Security investment tome.
But investing in the stock market is sooooo pre-Bubble and who needs to revisit those years when the President's sex life was big news, tacking dot-com onto anything could make you a paper millionaire (talk about your nonexistent trust funds) and there was no such thing as "American Idol?" What we really need is a plan that speaks to this day and age. Thus, instead of the President's "Funnel Account" proposal I suggest we get our Social Security funds in gambling chips in order to take one good crack at the roulette wheel or the craps table. For every person who wakes up with a hangover wondering why he or she called for a hit on a ten and a king at the blackjack table the night before, there is bound to be someone who reaped the rewards of studying game film from the "World Series of Poker."
I want to be first in line at the craps table yelling, "Come on, snake eyes! Fala needs a spring jacket!" |
The main problem with Social Security is that it is out of step with the times. It's been around since the 1930s. That was before TVs, MP3s and even X-Boxes. Back then the president was in a wheelchair! No wonder there was so much depression. At least now we have the courage to elect a president who can run a mile in a decent time. Instead of voting on the first Tuesday in November every four years, why don't the nominees duke it out in a 10K. With that arrangement Jeff Gillooly could be busting kneecaps for a much bigger payday than Tonya Harding ever promised. Third party candidates would be allowed to race, too, but race rules would prevent them from starting until and hour after the starting gun. Even then, they may not get official racing bibs.
Regardless of how fast the president can run, the Social Security crisis cannot be averted and the proverbial feces and fan commingling is due to strike right around the time I enter my "golden years." The time to act is now.
One means of fixing Social Security is to raise the age at which the benefits are paid out. This is all well and good, but why not go a step further - make "Upon Death" the age at which one is eligible for benefits? Sure, there would be some short-term gain, but really what have older folks ever contributed to society? Besides, the fund would be solvent in time for my retirement.
The main drawback to this plan is that baby boomers would be forced back into living with their children. I, for one, couldn't survive the countless references to how the bands and protests were better "back in my day."
We could always euthanize the Baby Boomers when they get over a certain age. After all, it is because there are so many of them that the Social Security fund is drying up. This would also lessen the burden on the current system, while removing its least productive members who, let's face it, don't have much of a future. That wouldn't play out very well politically, especially since old people vote. With all the old boomers gone and no one going to the polls on Election Day except evangelical Christians, who's to say that George W. Bush wouldn't become king after a special election? The Bush twins would only be a heartbeat away from the monarchy with Dick Cheney in a pickle jar clinging on to the Vice-Monarch title.
Since Bush is not yet a king, he is forced to convince the masses that his Social Security plan is a humdinger. It's kind of like "Twelve Angry Men" in the way that Henry Fonda convinced everyone that the defendant was innocent - only Bush invites the choir before he starts preaching. So far the President's plan has revolved around the "tom-a-to/tom-ah-to" debate over whether younger workers should invest in "private" or "personal" accounts. I prefer "funnel accounts," as in our money will be funneled toward some brokerage house with a history of political contributions. The basic idea behind "funnel accounts" is this: people under 55, armed with a copy of "Investing for Dummies" and the dim memory of panning for gold in the NASDAQ circa 1999 ("there's gold in them thar stocks!") would be allowed to invest their Social Security funds in anticipation of reaping the benefits of private investing. Thus, we won't be living check to check but portfolio earning statement to portfolio earning statement. Somehow this is supposed to keep Social Security going well past the expiration date of the Patriots XV-eth Super Bowl win in a row. Financial writers are already champing at the bit to write the "definitive" Social Security investment tome.
But investing in the stock market is sooooo pre-Bubble and who needs to revisit those years when the President's sex life was big news, tacking dot-com onto anything could make you a paper millionaire (talk about your nonexistent trust funds) and there was no such thing as "American Idol?" What we really need is a plan that speaks to this day and age. Thus, instead of the President's "Funnel Account" proposal I suggest we get our Social Security funds in gambling chips in order to take one good crack at the roulette wheel or the craps table. For every person who wakes up with a hangover wondering why he or she called for a hit on a ten and a king at the blackjack table the night before, there is bound to be someone who reaped the rewards of studying game film from the "World Series of Poker."
I want to be first in line at the craps table yelling, "Come on, snake eyes! Fala needs a spring jacket!" |
<< Home