'1 jbc: i>ULlUtilLOJiA
OPINION
Monday, November 13,1989
i
Opinion Page Editor Juliette Rizzo 845-
Social Security system in need of reform
SOCIAL SeCURITY...
THE MYTH!
...THE REALITY!
5^ ^
wav'
tliin
© RTKlrfSOH JR.
to trash the entire Social Seer
pi (M
Chri
The Social Security system ranks
right up there with the Pentagon and
HUD as one of the most worthless,
money-wasting programs in the fed
eral government.
1 am not real happy that I, and my
employers, are paying a significant
amount of money to fund the Social
Security program.
Next year’s Social Security tax rate
will be 7.65 percent. In some cases, the
combined employee/employer maxi
mum tax is 30.7 percent. That’s big
bucks in my book.
And the worst part is that by the
time I am old enough to draw any of
my money out of the system, it will be
defunct. Here’s why, in oversimplified
math:
Social Security benefits increase
based on a “cost of living allowance.”
The COLA is theoretically tied to the
rate of inflation. Next year’s scheduled
benefit increase is 4.7 percent, which
means that the average Social Security
benefit will double in 15 years and qua
druple in 30 years. By the year 2020,
the average benefit, if increased at the
same rate, would be around $24,000
per year. By the same year, the number
of eligible Social Security beneficiaries
will have increased to between 50 and
60 million people.
Do the multiplication and you real
ize that we are talking about a yearly
Social Security outlay by the govern
ment in the year 2020 of $1.25 trillion
(that’s trillion with a ‘T’). In numbers,
that’s $ 1,250,000,000,000 .
In order to fund this stupidity, every
paycheck will have to be taxed for
OASI (Old Age Survivors Insurance, a
clever psuedonym for Social Security)
at a rate of nearly 20 percent. In addi
tion, your employer will have to ante
up another 20 percent. Add to that
your federal income tax (which on my
last paycheck was 11 percent and for
most people is higher) and any state in
come tax (which Texas doesn’t pres
ently have but probably will soon) and
we’re talking 40 or 50 percent taxes on
every paycheck. That would be the
equivalent of working from January to
mid-June for free, and then living on
what you make the rest of the year.
And that’s assuming federal income
taxes won’t increase between now and
then, which they definitely will.
Obviously, the taxpayers of 2020 are
not going to be willing to be taxed at
such ridiculous rates. Something has
got to give, and if you are a betting
man, the smart money says that by
2030, when I turn 62, the Social Secu
rity fund will have gone belly up and all
the money I payed will have disap
peared into the Land of the One Lost
Sock, which means I’ll never see it
again.
So how do we fix the problem?
Well, that’s a tough one, and I’m cer
tainly not an esteemed economist on
the level of Milton Freidman or Bob
and Lynn Gillette, but here are a cou
ple of common-sense suggestions:
Limit future Social Security benefits
to low-income beneficiaries. Or at least
limit cost of living increases to those
people who really need them. If there
is anything more infuriating than giv
ing my money away, it’s giving it away
to someone who already has more than
I do. If COLAs were limited, for exam
ple, to couples making less than
$15,000 and single people making less
than $10,000, the savings would be in
the neighborhood of five billion dollars
a year.
Another suggestion comes from
C.L. and Martha Nordstrom, a con
cerned couple in Colorado who, in the
last four years, have voluntarily re
jected approximately $65,000 in bene
fits to support their belief that the sys
tem should be changed. They propose
a “means test” to determine if persons
between the ages of 62 and 70 have
sufficient income to forego all or part
of their calculated benefits. To over
simplify again, you just take all of a
couple’s income, from all sources, and
add it up. If it’s over a certain amount,
say $30,000, then the couple would not
be eligible to receive benefits until age
70. If the total income was less than
$30,000, then the couple would receive
benefits to increase total income to
$30,000. After age 70, no restrictions
at all would be imposed.
That all sounds somewhat compli
cated, but it really isn’t, and the savings
would be in the neighborhood of
$20,000,000,000 per year, based on an
estimated 3.5 million people now re
ceiving benefits averaging $6,000 a
year who would not be eligible for ben
efits or whose benefits would be re
duced under the plan. Less than 10
percent of the money saved would be
needed to increase the benefits of cur
rent recipients who are at or below the
poverty level. The rest could be in
vested and used to help keep Social Se
curity solvent.
Probably an even better plan would
System, and replace it with someJI
of private Individual Ketiremem ‘ To
count System. But there the mathstl
getting too intricate for my liberal: j$DI
brain. j
Besides, these changes will r,: ^yes
take place anyway, because the pc l. Cc
who are living off of the Social See 2. M
system right now have a pour- Man]
lobby and are the people who arer.n
likely to vote, which makes allthefiM a '
ticians too af raid of losing theirjok® )in
have the guts to take any significant 0 a I
tion. || b.
And that is another reason we U]lf le
perately need campaign and elecdP 0 ^
ref orm, but I’ll save that gripe for. c
other column.
Scot Walker is a junior joumiiQ ucs
major and editor o/The Battalion.
e.
Corps doesn’t ‘make the grade’ in my booh
Todd
Greenberg
Guest Columnist
I never imagined I would find my
self writing something critical of the
Corps. I know that what I have to write
about will make some people angry. I
hope, however, that they will consider
the points I am about to make — for an
organization which is unable or unwil
ling to cast a critical eye upon itself is
doomed to become its own worst
enemy.
First, let me say I am a former stu
dent and Corps member, and I believe
in and stand behind the Corps. How
ever, I am worried about the future of
the Corps.
What concerns me is the gradual
trend away from teaching leadership,
instilling discipline and building char
acter.
The Corps of today has a preoccupa
tion with numbers. This preoccupation
stems from a lack of leadership from
the Commandant’s office and from the
higher echelons of the Corps.
Although there are many examples
that deserve mention, the best example
of what I am referring to is the scholas
tic situation within the Corps. The
Corps has found itself in competition
with the civilians for better grades.
It is in this way the Corps must con
tinually justify its existence to its de
tractors. In this situation, grade point
ratios and retention rates become all
important —more important, say, than
producing good citizens and capable
leaders for the military, government
and business communities.
How many times has a cadet heard
the catch-all phrase “make grades?”
Many who now utter these words seem
preoccupied with the number of hours
of Call to Quarters (CQ), grade point
ratios and the grade rankings of va
rious outfits, while some others even
believe some Corps activities must be
curtailed to provide more “time to stu
dy.” Yes, the Corps must “make gra
des,” but it must do so without losing
sight of its reason for existence; all of
the while retaining those items which
make it unique among all other student
organizations.
In my junior year, my outfit won the
Jouine award from scholastic excel
lence and contributed to our batallion
receiving the President’s flag. We ac
complished this by teaching self-disci
pline, responsibility and plain of com
mon sense. We had no need for more
policies and regulations — or additio
nal CQ hours — and in no way did we
diminish our participation in Corps-re
lated activities.
I am sure that creating more policies
and enforcing them is much easier and
less risky than providing the leadership
that fosters responsibility, accountabil
ity and self-discipline.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what is
occuring in the Corps today. My defi
nition of leadership is “inspiring others
to perform and accomplish the tasks
placed before them.” Conversely, man
agement is the “supervision of human
resources for the purpose of making
sure people follow and adhere to estab-
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Scot O.Walker, Editor
Wade See, Managing Editor
Juliette Rizzo, Opinion Page Editor
Fiona Soltes, City Editor
Ellen Hobbs, Chuck Squatriglia,
News Editors
Tom Kehoe, Sports Editor
Jay Janner, Art Director
Dean Sueltenfuss, Lifestyles Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa
per operated as a community service to Texas A&M and
Bryan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the
editorial board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, fac
ulty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper
for students in reporting, editing and photography
classes within the Department of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday
during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday
and examination periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62
per school year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising
rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1 111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX
77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal
ion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station TX 77843-4111.
lished guidelines and policies.” It is evi
dent that the latter course is the one be
ing used most often today.
This leads me to my final point. I as
sume Maj. Gen. Darling means well,
but he is merely a victim of the system
he has served for so long. Managing
‘human resources’ is precisely the Air
Force’s cup of tea.’ Unfortunately, he
has forced this philosophy on the
Corps through micro-management of
Corps affairs — much to the detriment
of practical leadership training.
Yes, the Corps must “make
grades,” but it must do so without
losing sight of its reason for
existence; all of the while
retaining those items which
make it unique among all other
student organizations.
I propose that those who are closer
to the rank and file of the Corps, and
hence, those who know the needs of
their men, be given the authority for
making the decisions which apply to
their situations. I am, of course,
referring to the outfit commanders.
These men go through a protracted
selection process which includes
approval by the Commandant.
However, they do not receive the
authority commensurate with their
responsibilities.
For example, in order to excuse
freshmen and sophomores from CQ, a
military letter must be submitted to
Corps staff (three levels higher in the
chain-of-command) for approval by
the Corps scholastics officer and the
Corps commander. The outfit
commander, though closer and
obviously better informed about the
situation, is not trusted with making
such a simple decision. Sound familiar?
This type of “stovepiping” was a
contributing factor in our
government’s failure in Vietnam.
This type of distrust is symptomatic
of the micro-management infesting the
Corps chain-of-command. Frankly, I
see little need for outfit C.O.s at all if
they are not rightfully given the
authority to make decisions that
concern their people.
1'lie solution is to give more
authority to those throughoutthe
Corps’ chain-of-command and toil,
them accountable for any mistakes;:
bad decisions that may result. Faild
will indeed occur, for this is part of;
learning environment. With authoi
comes rsponsibility, and therefore
accountability. It takes all three,
weighted equally, to become a leadt;
And leaders are what the Corps
intends to produce.
Also, some degree of understand:
is necessary on the part of thosewk
oppose the Corps in realizing the
Corps is indeed a valuable learning
environment and a permanent as[»'
of the University. It is only in these
ways that the Corps will resume its
mission to produce efficient and
capable leaders and remain an asset
Texas A&M University and thenaii
Todd Greenberg is a graduate
student and a guest columnist fori
Battalion.
/T
(
<
i
.1
I
I
■I
<
I
>
(
I
I
l
\
L
\
F
1
i
1
l
1
F
ft
5
A