These are mostly great suggestions, but I fear some would incur an unacceptable political and personal cost. If social security cost-of-living adjustments were eliminated for 10 years, "real" benefits would decline by at least one-third (assuming only 4% inflation). This would mean abject poverty for those who depend on social with no other income alternatives, but it would not significantly affect people with private savings or investment assets. Yes, the US national debt will have to be "inflated away" by various means, and phasing out cost-ot-living adjustments is one way to do it, but the process will have to protect those with limited wealth, or it has little chance of being implemented.
Jim, I may not have explained myself clearly. What I meant was to cut the inflation adjustment with 1/10 per year over 10 years until it's gone. Ex. If inflation is 5% per year, then the COLA would be 4.5% the first year, 4% the second and so on. 10 years is just a suggestion. It can be made longer (or shorter). I think today's automatic adjustment desensitizes the population, and as I mention in the article, phasing out COLA would be one way of gradually waking them up.
Except for your generalization on "Trump's J6" minions, I am in complete agreement with the rest of your article. Specifically, the pardoning of someone who has been charged, with a crime, been subjected to due process, convicted and sentenced - however rightly or wrongly, is altogether in conflict with pardoning someone NOT having gone through such due process. It is in conflict with Reason itself! It amounts to a reversal of causality!
Your recommendations for "solving" SS are excellent! My only caveat being that in your series of steps, one should be added. Abolishment of the requirement for being "enrolled" in the program upon landing one's first source of W-2 income. Absent such a step, there will continue to be an annual increase in future wards of the rest of us and our probeny, who may have given little thought to their responsibility.
Perhaps I missed it or you had already assumed this to be the case, but I would make it an explicit step, one that reminds all of us of our individual responsibility and the commensurate rights and freedom to fulfill that responsibility.
These are mostly great suggestions, but I fear some would incur an unacceptable political and personal cost. If social security cost-of-living adjustments were eliminated for 10 years, "real" benefits would decline by at least one-third (assuming only 4% inflation). This would mean abject poverty for those who depend on social with no other income alternatives, but it would not significantly affect people with private savings or investment assets. Yes, the US national debt will have to be "inflated away" by various means, and phasing out cost-ot-living adjustments is one way to do it, but the process will have to protect those with limited wealth, or it has little chance of being implemented.
Jim, I may not have explained myself clearly. What I meant was to cut the inflation adjustment with 1/10 per year over 10 years until it's gone. Ex. If inflation is 5% per year, then the COLA would be 4.5% the first year, 4% the second and so on. 10 years is just a suggestion. It can be made longer (or shorter). I think today's automatic adjustment desensitizes the population, and as I mention in the article, phasing out COLA would be one way of gradually waking them up.
Except for your generalization on "Trump's J6" minions, I am in complete agreement with the rest of your article. Specifically, the pardoning of someone who has been charged, with a crime, been subjected to due process, convicted and sentenced - however rightly or wrongly, is altogether in conflict with pardoning someone NOT having gone through such due process. It is in conflict with Reason itself! It amounts to a reversal of causality!
Your recommendations for "solving" SS are excellent! My only caveat being that in your series of steps, one should be added. Abolishment of the requirement for being "enrolled" in the program upon landing one's first source of W-2 income. Absent such a step, there will continue to be an annual increase in future wards of the rest of us and our probeny, who may have given little thought to their responsibility.
Perhaps I missed it or you had already assumed this to be the case, but I would make it an explicit step, one that reminds all of us of our individual responsibility and the commensurate rights and freedom to fulfill that responsibility.
Excellent as usual!
Dave