Your key point - that reform must come from a bottom-up, grassroots movement - is worth emphasizing. The "grass-roots principle" applies to most economic challenges today. This quote from Ben Hunt (Epsilon Theorry) says it well (with some reservations about his use of "tribe").
"Like everything else worth saving from this idiotic period in history, the solution will not come from the top down. It will come from the bottom up. Not by trying to convince the tribalists that they’re corrupting or conflating a good thing with their tribal aims, but by forging a new tribe built around the ideas worth saving."
You and I know how vitally important it is to get off of Social Security, the sooner the better. Unfortunately, the problem is far more fundamental than just getting off social security, and that makes an intractable problem all the more impossible to solve. The fundamental problem underlying all of our problems, including social security, is an inability by all but a small percentage of people to conceptualize and integrate the facts of the world around them. When even our leaders, the supposedly best and brightest among us, can't understand the train wreck looming in front of us. Or worse, if they do understand it, but are willing to ignore it to win an election that keeps them in power for at most 6 more years, imagine how little the vast majority of the population understands about the problem. You and I again understand that the reason for this inability to think is a government education system that has purposely taught people how not to think for many decades. We have two hopes for averting the coming financial disaster - one if some leader is confident and strong enough to be able to explain the problem and advocate for the proper solution to a population that still must rely on it's conceptual faculty no matter how stunted, or - two, if the education system can be reformed enough to start producing thinking human beings again. You are, admirably, trying to provide the former though without the celebrity or platform to accomplish it. I don't see any such figure on the horizon in the next ten years though we could get lucky. Unfortunately, even though there are many good signs in education right now it would still take at least 20 years before even a dent could be made in the fundamental problem. The only real question right now is how much we can mitigate the coming disaster, and whether it will be bad enough to completely destroy the fabric of American society, which is to say the American experiment in freedom and self-government. The only good news for me is I probably won't live long enough to see it, but if I'm lucky (and we are all lucky) maybe I will be able to see the American renaissance because of people like you.
I long ago declared in public that I would be satisfied with free-and-clear title (including water and mineral rights) to at least one acre of decent Federally-owned land here in California (State of my birth, current home, and State of residence for all but two of my 65+ years), in exchange for ALL claims against Social Security and Medicare, and I lent my support to political candidates who advocated selling or exchanging excess Federal real-estate in order to fulfill the promise of those programs, while phasing them out for younger generations. There weren't many such candidates -- mostly Libertarian -- and SS/Medicare insolvency seemed very far off, back then. Now, I am eligible for SS and on Medicare, but only since very recently. I still think the deal I proposed was a good one, and I would still take it. I'm not greedy. Basically, I just want to get out of the system what my employers and I paid into it and no more; getting fair interest on that sum prorated over the years I paid in would be icing on the cake. To be honest, I don't want the government to have to borrow to pay me off, so would prefer the real-estate option. How about it, Uncle Sam?
Hi Anders. Back when I supported Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne (1996-2000) and his proposal to sell Federal assets to pay for benefits to people who were then drawing from Social Security and Medicare (or soon to become eligible) during a hypothetical sunset transition period, the idea was probably more feasible than it is now, after around a quarter-century of ongoing Federal profligacy. Anticipating the latter, my own idea includes an alternative deal simply to swap land and other real estate in exchange for any current or future claims against the Social Security/Medicare systems. The amount of land swapped would be based on the fair-market value of the land itself, and the remaining amount of money paid into the recipient's "account" after benefits received so far were deducted. The article you cited talks about Federal land being worth, on-average, around $4K per acre (in 2020). In my personal case, if the swap deal were available today (before I have drawn a single penny from either system), I could probably acquire at least a few dozen acres, based on what I have "contributed" to the systems over the years -- plenty for me. In exchange, I'd be responsible for my own healthcare and retirement expenses going forward, whereas, as things are now, I represent an unknown future expense to the government, which is likely to be larger than the value of the real-estate it could swap with me now for my abandonment of any participation in the government welfare systems.
To be clear, Browne's and my ideas were not intended to cover all of the federal debt, just the part that could be used to wean people, especially current recipients, off of Social Security and Medicare, once a sunset transition period began and people weren't paying into those systems anymore. The Cato article doesn't provide figures that are specifically relevant to that situation. But I can't help but think that getting people off the government systems ASAP, using the government's real estate assets (even after removing "protected" real-estate such as national parks, etc.) would greatly reduce the current debt burden, not to mention the ballooning future exposure (which, if not properly addressed, might force the government to raise the age of eligibility, reduce monthly benefits, and other politically unacceptable alternatives).
The government owns a huge amount of real estate in the West. Back during the Browne campaign years, the figure was around 48-49% in California alone, and I believe that number has not shrunk much since then. If (theoretically) selling half of California can't come close to paying off the national debt, or enabling Uncle Sam to sunset Social Security and Medicare, then I would suggest that we're basically done. I'd like to see Cato run an article focused on the financial practicality of using Federal assets to address the SS/Medicare situation.
Your key point - that reform must come from a bottom-up, grassroots movement - is worth emphasizing. The "grass-roots principle" applies to most economic challenges today. This quote from Ben Hunt (Epsilon Theorry) says it well (with some reservations about his use of "tribe").
"Like everything else worth saving from this idiotic period in history, the solution will not come from the top down. It will come from the bottom up. Not by trying to convince the tribalists that they’re corrupting or conflating a good thing with their tribal aims, but by forging a new tribe built around the ideas worth saving."
Jim: Thanks for sharing. Very well said (with the same minor reservation).
Anders,
You and I know how vitally important it is to get off of Social Security, the sooner the better. Unfortunately, the problem is far more fundamental than just getting off social security, and that makes an intractable problem all the more impossible to solve. The fundamental problem underlying all of our problems, including social security, is an inability by all but a small percentage of people to conceptualize and integrate the facts of the world around them. When even our leaders, the supposedly best and brightest among us, can't understand the train wreck looming in front of us. Or worse, if they do understand it, but are willing to ignore it to win an election that keeps them in power for at most 6 more years, imagine how little the vast majority of the population understands about the problem. You and I again understand that the reason for this inability to think is a government education system that has purposely taught people how not to think for many decades. We have two hopes for averting the coming financial disaster - one if some leader is confident and strong enough to be able to explain the problem and advocate for the proper solution to a population that still must rely on it's conceptual faculty no matter how stunted, or - two, if the education system can be reformed enough to start producing thinking human beings again. You are, admirably, trying to provide the former though without the celebrity or platform to accomplish it. I don't see any such figure on the horizon in the next ten years though we could get lucky. Unfortunately, even though there are many good signs in education right now it would still take at least 20 years before even a dent could be made in the fundamental problem. The only real question right now is how much we can mitigate the coming disaster, and whether it will be bad enough to completely destroy the fabric of American society, which is to say the American experiment in freedom and self-government. The only good news for me is I probably won't live long enough to see it, but if I'm lucky (and we are all lucky) maybe I will be able to see the American renaissance because of people like you.
I long ago declared in public that I would be satisfied with free-and-clear title (including water and mineral rights) to at least one acre of decent Federally-owned land here in California (State of my birth, current home, and State of residence for all but two of my 65+ years), in exchange for ALL claims against Social Security and Medicare, and I lent my support to political candidates who advocated selling or exchanging excess Federal real-estate in order to fulfill the promise of those programs, while phasing them out for younger generations. There weren't many such candidates -- mostly Libertarian -- and SS/Medicare insolvency seemed very far off, back then. Now, I am eligible for SS and on Medicare, but only since very recently. I still think the deal I proposed was a good one, and I would still take it. I'm not greedy. Basically, I just want to get out of the system what my employers and I paid into it and no more; getting fair interest on that sum prorated over the years I paid in would be icing on the cake. To be honest, I don't want the government to have to borrow to pay me off, so would prefer the real-estate option. How about it, Uncle Sam?
Hi James,
Selling of federal lands would generate some cash, but according to this article nowhere near what's needed: https://www.cato.org/blog/can-federal-assets-cover-national-debt#:~:text=The%20federal%20government%20owns%20about,a%20total%20of%20%241.8%20trillion.
Hi Anders. Back when I supported Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne (1996-2000) and his proposal to sell Federal assets to pay for benefits to people who were then drawing from Social Security and Medicare (or soon to become eligible) during a hypothetical sunset transition period, the idea was probably more feasible than it is now, after around a quarter-century of ongoing Federal profligacy. Anticipating the latter, my own idea includes an alternative deal simply to swap land and other real estate in exchange for any current or future claims against the Social Security/Medicare systems. The amount of land swapped would be based on the fair-market value of the land itself, and the remaining amount of money paid into the recipient's "account" after benefits received so far were deducted. The article you cited talks about Federal land being worth, on-average, around $4K per acre (in 2020). In my personal case, if the swap deal were available today (before I have drawn a single penny from either system), I could probably acquire at least a few dozen acres, based on what I have "contributed" to the systems over the years -- plenty for me. In exchange, I'd be responsible for my own healthcare and retirement expenses going forward, whereas, as things are now, I represent an unknown future expense to the government, which is likely to be larger than the value of the real-estate it could swap with me now for my abandonment of any participation in the government welfare systems.
To be clear, Browne's and my ideas were not intended to cover all of the federal debt, just the part that could be used to wean people, especially current recipients, off of Social Security and Medicare, once a sunset transition period began and people weren't paying into those systems anymore. The Cato article doesn't provide figures that are specifically relevant to that situation. But I can't help but think that getting people off the government systems ASAP, using the government's real estate assets (even after removing "protected" real-estate such as national parks, etc.) would greatly reduce the current debt burden, not to mention the ballooning future exposure (which, if not properly addressed, might force the government to raise the age of eligibility, reduce monthly benefits, and other politically unacceptable alternatives).
The government owns a huge amount of real estate in the West. Back during the Browne campaign years, the figure was around 48-49% in California alone, and I believe that number has not shrunk much since then. If (theoretically) selling half of California can't come close to paying off the national debt, or enabling Uncle Sam to sunset Social Security and Medicare, then I would suggest that we're basically done. I'd like to see Cato run an article focused on the financial practicality of using Federal assets to address the SS/Medicare situation.
Jim, point taken - thanks!
What IS the SOTU?
State Of The Union (I probably should have spelled it out).