What Did FDR Intend For Social Security?
Ara thinks that I may be misinformed about FDR's intentions. I think that I can safely assure Ara that I wasn't using any newscaster or talking head as a source for my comment that Democrats "can't remember what FDR intended for Social Security."
Nope. I sure wasn't. I was using FDR's own words to make that assertion. I also wasn't saying that FDR intended what Bush is proposing. Why? Because until Bush actually proposes SOMETHING concrete I have no idea if it will mesh with FDR's calls for "voluntary contributory annuities". I know that the system, as it is now, isn't what FDR hoped for because much of what his speech stated isn't happening. Here is the speech [edited for brevity]:
Nope. I sure wasn't. I was using FDR's own words to make that assertion. I also wasn't saying that FDR intended what Bush is proposing. Why? Because until Bush actually proposes SOMETHING concrete I have no idea if it will mesh with FDR's calls for "voluntary contributory annuities". I know that the system, as it is now, isn't what FDR hoped for because much of what his speech stated isn't happening. Here is the speech [edited for brevity]:
January 17, 1935So, what did FDR intend and are the Democrats living up to his example? It is my opinion that FDR did not intend for SS to remain the way it has and I think that the Dems are only fighting this because Bush is proposing to do something.
In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of recommending the basis of legislation.
...
It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of Federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea - a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the world have already adopted it and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable project.
Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. First, the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general taxation. Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to the States subject to standards established by the Federal Government. Third, sound financial management of the funds and the reserves, and protection of the credit structure of the Nation should be assured by retaining Federal control over all funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.
At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:
1. Unemployment compensation.
2. Old-age benefits, including compulsory and voluntary annuities.
3. Federal aid to dependent children through grants to States for the support of existing mothers' pension systems and for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.
4. Additional Federal aid to State and local public-health agencies and the strengthening of the Federal Public Health Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called "health insurance," although groups representing the medical profession are cooperating with the Federal Government in the further study of the subject and definite progress is being made.
...
In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100,000,000.
...
Posted by Rosemary on
02.23.2005
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
Doing the right thing--the fiscally sound thing, the morally proper thing--by moving toward individually owned accounts IS the progressive stance. It would give every American at every level of income actual ownership, an actual piece of the pie.
It's a given that sooner or later we'll do the right thing and move Social Security toward individual ownership accounts. The only question in my mind is how long the anti-progressive, kneejerk reactionaries will be able to stave off the inevitable.
Those of us who are lucky to live in an enlightened and prosperous society understand that everyone benefits by providing our oldest citizens with a modest stipend to comfort them in their final years.
It's the least we can do for those who built the world we live in.
And, in so doing, we are following the moral imperative to honor our fathers and our mothers.
Those of you who disagree with that, fine. But please be straightforward about it say that you disagree.
That said, I see that this debate is about keeping SS the way it is (with a few tweaks) versus replacing it with something completely new.
Given that choice, I'll always go with the status quo.
P.S. And by the way, regardless of what you believe FDR meant, the record is clear: Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" -- which differ significantly from private accounts -- to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits and never proposed replacing Social Security benefits with private accounts. Not even close.
Those of you who feel you are entitled to be a burden on your children even when there are better, less selfish alternatives, fine. But please be straightforward and just say outright that this is what you feel entitled to.
Those of you who will "always go with the status quo" should also stop lying and calling yourselves liberals or progressives; what you are is reactionary conservatives. Nothing wrong with that. Just admit it. In any case, though, stop lying: this isn't a choice between radically altering the program or keeping things the same, it's about modifying the program to be more in line with what was always intended: a system that started out entirely state-funded but would move toward voluntary annuities over time.
And voluntary annuities ARE privately owned.
It's very clear what was always intended: gradually reduce the Federal government's roles, rely on the states more and more to manage things, and manage them like normal pension funds are, with market annuities and a mix of compulsory and voluntary donations.
But I wouldn't expect the reactionary set to admit any of that. They aren't interested in being honest or in progressive ideas to make the world a better place. They're interested in selfishness, picking their children's pockets, and preserving the status quo at all costs.
The question we face is fundamentally moral: will those of us in Gen X and Y have the strength of character to do what is right? Or will we let the old-school reactionaries preserve the status quo in amber forever?
The fact that I don't want my children to be burdened with supporting me means that I oppose gay marriage.
I mean, isn't that obvious?!?
(Someone needs to look up the term "non-sequitur.")
I have very mixed feelings over this and burdening my children never came to my mind. Then again, never did going on social security disability ever cross my mind. I am straight down in the middle of this in agreeing with Rosemary and Ara and that is HONEST.
To burden my children is harsh words. I can not think of anyone I know in their 50's that would have ever dreamed of that final outcome. My grandmother and mother upon retirement got a small check from social security and they were glad it was there. Both of them were sharp as tacs and invested over and above social secuity and in the end the stock market had both of them up and arms. When life sets in the status quo is really not a bad thing. FWIW.