I think limiting it to a wedge issue amongst the young voter is wrong. I’m 51 and have been paying in for 35 years and I’m not counting on receiving a DIME from Social Security.
I am, however, quite curious to see Thad McCotter’s SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN, which will be unveiled tomorrow at Noon, at the Heritage Foundation. At least ONE candidate has a PLAN!
At 51 (BTW, I am but a few years younger), you have the worst of both worlds having paid into an insolvent system for 35 years with no real benefits to show from it when you reach the SS retirement age and too seasoned to take advantage of any possible alternative that should be made available to younger workers. As you know, real growth in retirement savings occurs when one is in his 20s and 30s. At 50 years old, it is nearly impossible to play catchup. The current system is immoral.
George Bush attempted to solve this crisis with ‘partial privatization’.
In May 2001, he announced establishment of a 16-member bipartisan commission “to study and report specific recommendations to preserve Social Security for seniors while building wealth for younger Americans”, with the specific directive that it consider only how to incorporate “individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts”.[77] The majority of members serving on Bill Clinton’s similar Social Security commission in 1996 had recommended through their own report that partial privatization be implemented.[2] Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS) issued a report in December 2001 (revised in March 2002), which proposed three alternative plans for partial privatization: