Given the dismal state of entitlements at the Federal level where the trust fund is about to run out of the I.O.U.s (from OTHER Federal departments that took the money, spent it, and now have no way of returning that money – except by taxes) we’re at that "rock, meet hard place". Given that the problem is bounded on most sides by one item, demographics, there are few options from a traditional viewpoint (e.g., tinker with taxes, raise the retirement age, reform S.S.I).
However, this guy may be onto something:
Social Security is the ultimate dependency on the State – for that "free money" (for it comes from others and NOT the money you’ve had taken from you over the years), lots of strings come attached. You can only do for yourself just.so.much or that free money gets decreased more and more. And, you are trapped into Medicare (no choices, or lose the S.S. check). It also tends to artificially separate the older generations from the younger under the rubric of "independence" (emphasis on independence from family, more dependence on Government).
Imagine the shock that Progressives go through when they learn of this idea: no control. No strings are POSSIBLE with this – no behavior modification.
But it IS a way to actually carry out its premised mission – help those who need it while not hamstringing those that can do for themselves. A twofer – conserves the money needed for the needy (since, well, we’re broke) by incentivizing those that can to continue by appealing to self-interest (hey, if I work, I get to keep it all!).
Helping those that need help – NOT penalizing those that can be self-sufficient. I think that’s a win-win situation!
Bonus would be if he actually takes out uber-enviro-wacko Ed Markey (D-MA) and takes his place in Congress.
