Have ba­bies to save So­cial Se­cu­rity

The Washington Post Sunday - - SUNDAY OPINION -

Re­gard­ing Robert Sa­muel­son’s Dec. 27 op-ed, “Our fair­ness dilemma,” on the re­form of So­cial Se­cu­rity and Medi­care:

Mr. Sa­muel­son men­tions that some baby-boomer re­tirees and soon-to-be re­tirees are ob­ject­ing that some of the re­form pro­pos­als rais­ing the re­tire­ment age at which ben­e­fits are re­ceived and cut­ting ben­e­fits would be “un­fair.”

“Un­fair”? What cheeky hypocrisy! The peo­ple who want their ben­e­fits pre­served are the ones re­spon­si­ble for the prob­lem. Af­ter all, it was they who broke the “chain of trust” by which each work­ing gen­er­a­tion sup­ports the re­tired gen­er­a­tion’s ben­e­fits. They re­duced the num­ber of their chil­dren to about two per fam­ily, or even fewer, so that to­day there are about 60 to 70 mil­lion fewer con­sumers and work­ers than there would have been, and that many fewer peo­ple to sup­port the boomer re­tirees and soon-to-be re­tirees.

It would be condign pun­ish­ment if the boomers’ ben­e­fits were in­deed cut; it would be the ut­most in “fair­ness.” In the mean­time, the com­ing gen­er­a­tion of work­ers must be ed­u­cated to the eco­nomic and de­mo­graphic ben­e­fits, and even psy­cho­log­i­cal ben­e­fits, of sta­ble mar­riages and fam­i­lies with many chil­dren, say six to eight.

In other words, to save So­cial Se­cu­rity, have ba­bies.

Ed­ward Thorne, Fair­fax

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.