The role of the government in "a society for all ages.".

The role of the government in "a society for all ages.". For 1999's National Health Line articles, Sharon Keigher hasadopted the theme of the United Nations International Year of OlderPersons The year 1999 was proclaimed the International Year of Older Persons by the United Nations. The proclamation was launched on 1 October 1998, the International Day of Older Persons, by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and Dr. Gunhild O. , "Towards a Society for All Ages" The UN, as manysocial gerontology gerontology:see geriatrics. groups around the world also wish to do, wishes topromote and celebrate the ideal of older people becoming integrated intotheir societies, being viewed as a mainstream rather than as a marginalpresence. In the spirit of this declaration, it is instructive to juxtapose jux��ta��pose?tr.v. jux��ta��posed, jux��ta��pos��ing, jux��ta��pos��esTo place side by side, especially for comparison or contrast. the current U.S. policy debate about the future of social securityagainst the idea of "a society for all ages" Much irony liesin such an exercise because, as difficult as it may seem to thosefavoring maintenance of the universal, defined-benefit,intergenerational in��ter��gen��er��a��tion��al?adj.Being or occurring between generations: "These social-insurance programs are intergenerational and all program that we currently have in place, thosepromoting the privatization privatization:see nationalization. privatizationTransfer of government services or assets to the private sector. State-owned assets may be sold to private owners, or statutory restrictions on competition between privately and publicly owned of pension and health programs for elderlypeople see their objectives in much the same light. Because, toprivatizers, the heart of mainstream society lies in families and thefree market, they believe we can better integrate elderly people intosociety by reducing their dependence on government. In particular, improved circumstances in the lives of many elderlypeople have privatizers believing that we can lessen government'scentral role in continuing to promote their well-being. The argumentgoes on to stipulate that, as a result of the key role social securityitself has played in this trend, we can now reintroduce private sectormechanisms to promote economic opportunity and security among elderlypeople. Social security as we have known it was appropriate to "itstime" (1935 to perhaps the early 1980s, in privatizers' view),but today it can and should move beyond its publicness and itspaternalism paternalism (p·terˑ·n . In short, in the views of many conservatives, substantialnumbers of older people can "graduate into the private sector"In so doing, they become part of a (private) society for all ages. The charge to liberals and progressives is not to allow the debateover the future of social security to be constructed in this manner.Specifically, the role of social insurance in U.S. life cannot be recastas dated, aberrational, and not in keeping with core American valuesabout society and security. Whereas privatizers seek to portray socialsecurity as a prime example of public sector excess because benefits arenow going to well-off elderly people, advocates must point to socialsecurity's unparalleled success in reducing poverty among elderlypeople. Whereas privatizers bemoan be��moan?tr.v. be��moaned, be��moan��ing, be��moans1. To express grief over; lament.2. To express disapproval of or regret for; deplore: the alleged paternalism and lack ofchoice associated with these federal programs, advocates must reminddecision makers that for decades more than 90 percent of the public hasunwaveringly stated that they want either "the same" or"more" resources devoted to social security (Page, 1999).Moreover, the public would choose tax increases over benefit cuts ifthose were the only options available. Where privatizers would place thefate and fortunes of middle-class elderly people in the marketplace andthose of low-income elderly people in "first-tier" or publicassistance programs, advocates must make clear that social securityprevents poverty and maintains income by incorporating all eligiblebeneficiaries into a single unitary and mildly redistributive system. In short, the charge to those on the left in the emerging publicdebate on social security (and Medicare) is to reinforce andreinvigorate the place of major social insurance programs as legitimate,effective, popular, and established. "Towards a society for allages" must continue to include a central role for government aswell as for families and the market. THE EMERGENCE OF PRIVATIZATION ALTERNATIVES Given the historical realities surrounding social security, it isremarkable that privatization has today assumed such a prominent placeon the menu of social security options. Three interrelated developmentshave made possible the ascendancy of private alternatives to socialsecurity: population imagery, policy institutionalization InstitutionalizationThe gradual domination of financial markets by institutional investors, as opposed to individual investors. This process has occurred throughout the industrialized world. , and politicalideology. Population Imagery In the absence of substantial economic resources among elderlypeople, the privatization option could not exist. Creation of privatepension, health care, and other market-based programs is predicated onthere being money in the hands of older people. Until recently, the vastmajority of older people did not possess such resources, and,consequently, private markets tapping elderly people and providing themwith consumption and investment options were scarce. The marginal life circumstances of elderly people historically is awell-documented tale. Extrapolating from the official measure of povertydeveloped by the federal government in the late 1960s, we know thatsomething more than half of the older population were poor at the timeof the New Deal (Brody, 1987). In 1967 real household income amongelderly people was only $8,940 (in 1992 dollars) (Radner, 1995). Asrecently as 1975, half of the older people continued to have incomesless than 200 percent of the poverty level (Friedland, 1999). At thetime of Medicare's enactment in 1965. fewer than half of the olderpeople had any form of health insurance, and Wilbur Cohen cohenor kohen(Hebrew: “priest”) Jewish priest descended from Zadok (a descendant of Aaron), priest at the First Temple of Jerusalem. The biblical priesthood was hereditary and male. , a keyarchitect of Medicare, stated that amassing data to show that elderlypeople did not have resources sufficient for paying health insurancepremiums and co-payments was "like using a steamroller to overcomean ant" (Marmor, 1973). Under these circumstances, there were veryfew private markets targeting older people. In more recent years the economic fortunes of elderly people andimages of them have continued to improve. No longer can elderly peoplebe understood as a singularly impoverished, sick, and frail population.Today, poverty among elderly people hovers around 12 percent, medianincome is $15,192, the percentage of elderly people with incomes lessthan 200 percent of the poverty level has declined to 39 percent, andover 95 percent of older Americans have acute health insurance throughMedicare. In addition, roughly three-quarters of elderly people owntheir own homes, and roughly three-quarters of those elderly people ownthem mortgage free. Highlighting these improvements in elders' collectivewell-being is in no way to deny the continued incidence of vulnerabilityamong significant and easily identified subpopulations of elderlypeople. This "second face of aging" (Crystal, 1982) is starkand well known, certainly to social workers in health and aging. Povertyrates among old-old people are 40 percent higher than among young-oldpeople; the median incomes of older families is 2 1/2 times that ofsingle older individuals; older black people are three times and olderHispanics are twice as likely to be poor as older white people; and, inthe most startling composite, the poverty rate among "old-old"black women is 10 times the rate of poverty among "young-old"white men. Stunning as these disparities may be, they are far from Exhibit Ain privatizers' armamentarium ar��ma��men��tar��i��umn. pl. ar��ma��men��tar��i��ums or ar��ma��men��tar��i��aThe complete equipment of a physician or medical institution, including drugs, books, supplies, and instruments. . For them, the principal pointremains that "the elderly" have resources they did not havedecades ago. This partial reality has animated the politics ofprivatization surrounding social security and other programs.Privatizers would not ignore completely elderly people who are currentlypoor and sick, but they would "re-residualize" public effortson their behalf. Thus, they would expand means-tested programs directedto these individuals and attempt to pull more affluent elderly peopleinto private markets simultaneously. The principal policy consequence ofsimultaneously privatizing programs for the better-off whilemeans-testing programs for the vulnerable is the systematic erosion ofthe nation's major social insurance program, Old Age and SurvivorsInsurance Noun 1. survivors insurance - insurance paid to surviving spousesSocial Security - social welfare program in the U.S.; includes old-age and survivors insurance and some unemployment insurance and old-age assistance , also known as social security. Policy Institutionalization The second factor furthering privatization options is found in thevery growth of policies directed toward the old. In sociological jargonthese programs have by now attained "institutional" status -that is, the programs are encompassing, legitimate, effective, andvalued. This was not always the case. The Old Age and Survivors Insuranceportion of the social security, enacted during the New Deal, was smallerthan the means-tested Old Age Assistance Program until the early 1950s,and, in fact, came close to being eliminated during that time.Disability insurance was not enacted until 1956, and Medicare andMedicaid Medicare and MedicaidU.S. government programs in effect since 1966. Medicare covers most people 65 or older and those with long-term disabilities. Part A, a hospital insurance plan, also pays for home health visits and hospice care. were created only in 1965. It was the 1965-74 decade that sawthe full flowering of the aging policy we know today: passage ofMedicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act, and the Age Discriminationin Employment Act The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602 (Dec. 15, 1967), codified as Chapter 14 of Title 29 of the United States Code, through (ADEA), prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older in the United States (see ). ; a 70 percent increase in social security benefits,tying future increases to the cost of living, Supplemental SecurityIncome Supplemental Security IncomeA Social Security program established to help the blind, disabled, and poor. , the Employee Retirement Income Security Act The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq. (1974), is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established Pension and health plans in private industry to provide protection for individuals enrolled in these plans. ; and creation of theNational Institute on Aging. There have been few new programauthorizations in the more recent period, but the expenditures andexpectations surrounding each of these programs have continued to grow. At first blush Adv. 1. at first blush - as a first impression; "at first blush the offer seemed attractive"when first seen , the newfound salience sa��li��ence? also sa��li��en��cyn. pl. sa��li��en��ces also sa��li��en��cies1. The quality or condition of being salient.2. A pronounced feature or part; a highlight.Noun 1. of these programs should makethem politically impregnable and a firewall against privatizationoptions. That may ultimately prove to be the case, but issuessurrounding their current status have partially served theprivatizers' cause. The principal reason is that the programs havebecome by some standards "too big." In current parlance,"we can't afford them" "they are growing out ofcontrol," "they are squeezing out other needs"(especially those of children), and "they are sapping nationalsavings and impeding economic growth." If the ultimate politicalopprobrium OPPROBRIUM, civil law. Ignominy; shame; infamy. (q.v.) in the 1980s was "the L-word" liberalism; itsreplacement in the 1990s is the "E-word," entitlements. Inbudgetary terms, an entitlement program is one that does not requireannual Congressional appropriations - expenditures mandated by law mustbe made, whatever the level. In political terms, entitlements havebecome programs that have created their own reality. They growautomatically, pulling in new claimants and beneficiaries every month -what critics see as essentially a political breeder-reactor effect. Indeed, the argument can be and has been made that it is policieson aging, not interest groups like the American Association of RetiredPersons (AARP), that are responsible for the massive political presenceolder people have in the United States United States,officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. today. The story is a complicatedone, but there can be no question that most of the interest groups onaging came into being or became politically involved after most of themajor aging-related programs were already in place (Quadagno, 1991;Walker, 1983). This "policy causes politics" understanding, ifvalid, has important implications for how privatization efforts willplay out in the months and years ahead. If policy institutionalizationhelped galvanize gal��va��nize?tr.v. gal��va��nized, gal��va��niz��ing, gal��va��niz��es1. To stimulate or shock with an electric current.2. the organized interests of today's elderly people,do the organized elderly people today have the size and cohesion toforestall major privatization initiatives? Political Ideology The final strand of political developments fostering privatizationinitiatives centers on a body of conservative political philosophy thathas been building since the 1970s. The creation of magazines andjournals such as The National Review and The Public Interest, Washingtonthink tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute "Cato" redirects here. For Cato, see Cato.The Institute's stated mission is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by striving "to achieve , andrecent books such as The Good Life and Its Discontents (Samuelson, 1995)and From Opportunity to Entitlement: The Transformation and Decline ofGreat Society Liberalism (Davies, 1996) all speak to the rise ofconservative thinking in U.S. political life. In Washington, DavidStockman David Alan Stockman (born November 10 1946) is a former U.S. politician and businessman, serving as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan (1977–1981) and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985). , Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and John Kasich have been theleaders of this movement. The overall message emanating from these sources is that thefederal government has become too big a part of American life, isineffective and inefficient in what it does, is self-serving in thepolitical alliances of like-minded liberals that it supports, and, atworst, is corrosive to the spirit of individualism and freedom that liesat the core of the American character. Government's roles andresponsibilities have grown to the point where, in the view of mostconservative thinkers, the government is more part of the problems weface than it is a solution to them. Elderly people were the last social policy constituency to comeunder this conservative lens, largely because of their long-standing andsingular vulnerability. But now because of their numbers, theirwell-being, and mostly because of the enormity of the programs that nowexist on their behalf, older people are as legitimate targets ofprivatization efforts as most other population groups. And, beyondprivatization, contemporary circumstances mean that older people can nowbe part of a residualist's society for all ages. NEW ASSUMPTIONS AND OLD POLICIES These developments in the demographic, policy, and political arenashave raised more fundamental questions about the roles and purposes ofsocial security than have been seen at any time since the early 1950s,if not the mid-1930s. The legitimacy of these concerns is determinedvery much by the old political adage, "where you stand depends onwhere you sit." Population and Policy Irony or not, privatization proposals build on the successes ofsocial security in improving the lot of older people over recentdecades. To conservatives, a third stage has been added to the welfarestate bellwether "from relief to income maintenance," namely,"from income maintenance to investment choice." Having (andexpecting in the future) a more highly educated older population and onemore conversant CONVERSANT. One who is in the habit of being in a particular place, is said to be conversant there. Barnes, 162. with private investment vehicles, their view is that wecan move away from simply putting collective resources into governmentinstruments and begin putting individuals' resources into privatemarkets. Plans that would replace the existing social security definedbenefit with mandated "personal savings accounts" (to whichdefined contributions would be made, but defined benefits notguaranteed) would bring about such a shift. The proposal of SylvesterSchieber, a member of the 1996 Social Security Advisory Commission,would have done this in dramatic form, albeit it over a 75-year period(Schieber, 1996). More recent plans suggested by Harvard economistMartin Feldstein and by Representative Clay Shaw (R-Florida), Chairmanof the House Ways and Means WAYS AND MEANS. In legislative assemblies there is usually appointed a committee whose duties are to inquire into, and propose to the house, the ways and means to be adopted to raise funds for the use of the government. This body is called the committee of ways and means. Committee, pull back from that proposal.They would move toward private accounts, but would maintain a full or atleast partial benefit guarantee. Yet, as Roger Hickey of the SocialSecurity Information project has noted, combining private investmentswith public guarantees is the perfect formula for "lemonsocialism": the government absorbs the downside risks("lemons") and the private sector is assured the upside gains("socialism") (Kuttner, 1999). The critical antidote liberals and progressives must administerhere is that acknowledging the improved circumstances of older peopledoes not necessarily translate into replacing security (the definedbenefit) with choice (investing in one's own personal retirementaccount). Social security was never intended to be and is not the onlysource of retirement income for older people. From the New Deal totoday, system proponents have always insisted on a role for individualsavings and private pensions for supporting Americans in retirement.Social security is, however, the principal benefit source containing aguaranteed benefit. More critical yet, social security has become theoverwhelming income source for low-income elderly people, precisely thegroup most dependent on the defined benefit, least interested in havingprivate accounts, and least able to understand the various investmentchoices that private accounts would create. A very different way to recognize changes in the situation ofcontemporary elderly people would be to reassess where the risks of oldage lie today. Conservatives and privatizers have a legitimate point inciting aggregate improvements in economic well-being among today'solder population. But in highlighting how things have improved, theypointedly omit where conditions have become notably more problematic.And that is in the area of health and long-term care. Older people aremore readily able to meet normal consumption needs today than in thepast, but they increasingly face the staggering economic andpsychological costs brought about by the aging of the older populationitself and through the attendant long-term care needs facing theoldest-old people. The left's approach to "the new aging" should bemoving toward establishment of public long-term care insurance whiledefending the core principles underlying social security. Because thecatastrophic costs associated with Alzheimer's disease Alzheimer's disease(ăls`hī'mərz, ôls–), degenerative disease of nerve cells in the cerebral cortex that leads to atrophy of the brain and senile dementia. , stroke, andso forth dwarf the resources most older people could ever accumulate,the possibility of devoting a modest proportion of social securitypayments to a public long-term care insurance trust fund should beexplored (Chen, 1993; Hudson, 1993). Such an approach acknowledgeseconomic improvements among older people while addressing thedevastations that can accompany very advanced age, the great late-lifecontingency unrecognized by social insurance in the United States. Politics and Policy The politics of social security privatization will be something tobehold in the months and years ahead. The outcome will hinge largely onactivities along two fronts. The first centers on how the privatizationissue is constructed and interpreted. Nowhere in politics will the useof language be more intriguing than in the discussions about the futureof social security. Here, one persons saving is another'stransforming, and yet another's "dismantling."Privatizers' version of saving social security centers on their"realistic acknowledgment" of the graying of the UnitedStates, the presumed preferences of Americans to have "morechoice" in their investments, and a desire "to get in on thebetter returns" that can be found in the stock market and otherprivate vehicles. Beyond there being little evidence that the broadpublic subscribes to these views, it is something of a stretch to buythe argument that plans that would take social security from adefined-benefit to a defined-contribution plan Defined-Contribution PlanA retirement plan wherein a certain amount or percentage of money is set aside each year for the benefit of the employee. There are restrictions as to when and how you can withdraw these funds without penalties. , replace a singleinsurance pool with millions of private accounts, move from apay-as-you-go intergenerational transfer to an intragenerational savingsscheme, and create a two-tier program in light of the single universalone that exists today is, in fact, "saving" social security. Those who would maintain social security largely as it isacknowledge the need for modifying the system, but their changes wouldbe along the lines of bringing new state and local government workersunder coverage, tinkering with the benefit formula, recalculating thecost-of-living adjustment, and, perhaps, investing some portion of thegrowing reserves in stock and bonds. Using reasonable assumptions, suchmoves will preserve social security for decades. Most important, thisapproach appears to be what the U.S. public wants. It is true that theknown is often preferable to the unknown and that the public'slevel of knowledge about the current system or of the alternatives ispainfully low, but those realities hardly provide a blank check Blank checkA check that is duly signed, but the amount of the check is left blank to be supplied by the drawee. to thosewho would fundamentally alter the system. The final point is related to the above. It appears increasinglythat there is emerging a basic disconnect between elite ("insidethe Beltway "Inside the Beltway" is a phrase used to characterize parts of the real or imagined American political system. It refers to the Capital Beltway (Interstate 495), a beltway that encircles Washington, D.C. ") and mass ("public") opinion - perhaps, a laaffaire Lewinsky. As is true of many arenas of public policy today,social security privatization is not a product of civics civics,branch of learning that treats of the relationship between citizens and their society and state, originally called civil government. With the large immigration into the United States in the latter half of the 19th cent. books'depiction of individuals voting, letter writing, and joining interestgroups to see their bill become a law. Beyond being the source ofprivatization ideas and proposals, conservative think tanks andindividual entrepreneurs have been the instrumental forces indisseminating and popularizing such ideas. Investment banker Investment BankerA person representing a financial institution that is in the business of raising capital for corporations and municipalities.Notes:An investment banker may not accept deposits or make commercial loans. PeterPeterson, former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, business tycoon PeteDuPont all have gone from proposing to proselytizing. In a politicalsystem where campaign contributions are a protected form of free speech,this is certainly their right, but the question of representativeness -indeed, of choice - does arise. Thus, we come to the final question, namely, whether the publicwill buy what the privatizers are selling. Among liberal elites (mainlyacademics and their think tanks), the conservatives' ideas have setoff a flurry of worry and have generated proposals to largely preservewhat we have come to know. It may turn out that these liberal elites areas isolated from popular thinking as are their conservative counterparts(if, for example, raising the age for full-retirement benefits surfacesin liberals' as well as in conservatives' proposals). We knowthat most of the public wants social security pretty much as they haveknown it, and we know they are very worried that it will not be. At this point in time, it is simply too early to tell ifprivatizing will pass muster with the public. The early test will be ifprivatization catches on with those members of the public who, ineconomic terms, have the most to gain. Ideology varies systematicallywith socioeconomic status, and if any members of the public will buysocial security transformation (that is, making it something quitedifferent from what it has been), it will be those who are the betteroff. If this occurs, especially among those, say, age 50 and above, wewill be seeing a fragmenting of the older population's politicalvoice, a voice that polls and lore have long held to be largely one whenit comes to social security. Such a development would be significantbecause political analysts have long wondered about the degree to whichelderly people's vaunted vaunt?v. vaunt��ed, vaunt��ing, vauntsv.tr.To speak boastfully of; brag about.v.intr.To speak boastfully; brag. See Synonyms at boast1.n.1. political power ("AARP is the mostpowerful group in Washington") is real or imagined. As Alinsky(1946) contended, "the perception of power is as important as thepossession of power." If privatization proposals gain significantnumbers of converts among the old (here, "old money"), theperception of power will begin to fade. CONCLUSION To conservatives, privatization of social security would be a majoraccomplishment in a larger effort to reinstall To go through the installation process once again, because files have become corrupted. See reload. the idea that theprincipal U.S. institutions related to individual well-being are themarket and the family. Markets are in place to ensure economicwell-being; families are the core social institution promoting social,psychological, and spiritual well-being spiritual well-being,n a sense of peace and contentment stemming from an individual's relationship with the spiritual aspects of life. . In such an understanding,government activity becomes a barometer of how far we have fallen fromthe ideal. The challenge to liberals is nothing less than making surethat the "institutional" place of social security - that is,as an accepted, expected, and legitimate program - is maintained. And by"maintained," we must mean continuation of a universal,single-tier program, assuring a defined annuity benefit, that uses theagency of government to modestly redistribute retirement benefits towardthose of lower income. REFERENCES Alinsky, S. (1946). Reveille for radicals. Chicago: University ofChicago Press The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the United States. It is operated by the University of Chicago and publishes a wide variety of academic titles, including The Chicago Manual of Style, dozens of academic journals, including . Brody, S. (1987). Strategic planning: The catastropic approach.Gerontologist ger��on��tol��o��gy?n.The scientific study of the biological, psychological, and sociological phenomena associated with old age and aging.ge��ron , 27, 131-138. Chen, Y-P. (1993). A "three-legged stool": A new way tofund long-term care. In Institute of Medicine (Ed.), Care in the longterm (pp. 54-70). Washington, DC: National Academy' Press. Crystal, S. (1982). America's old age crisis: The two worldsof aging. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Basic Books. Davies, G. (1996). From opportunity to entitlement: Thetransformation and decline of great society liberalism. Lawrence:University of Kansas The University of Kansas (often referred to as KU or just Kansas) is an institution of higher learning in Lawrence, Kansas. The main campus resides atop Mount Oread. Press. Friedland, R. (1999). Demography is not destiny. Public Policy andAging Report, 9, 9. Hudson, R. (1993). Social contingencies, the aged, and publicpolicy. Milbank Quarterly, 71, 253-277. Kuttner, R. (1999, January 27). Clinton's dangerous dalliance.Washington Post, p. A19. Marmor, T. (1973). The politics of Medicare. Chicago: Aldine. Page, B. (1999, January 27). Is social security reform ready forthe American public? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theNational Academy of Social Insurance, Washington, DC. Quadagno, J. (1991). Interest group politics and the future of U.S.social security. In I. Myles & I. Quadagno (Eds.), States, labormarkets, and the future of old-age policy (pp. 36-58). Philadelphia:Temple University Press. Radner, D. (1995). Incomes of the elderly and non-elderly, 1967-92.Social Security Bulletin, 58, 82-97. Samuelson, R. (1995). The good life and its discontents. New York:Random House. Schieber, S. (1996). A new vision for social security. PublicPolicy and Aging Report, 7, 1,6-7, 9, 14-15. Walker, J. (1983). The origins and maintenance of interest groupsin America. American Political Science Review, 77, 390-406. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Robert B. Hudson, PhD, is chair, Department of Social WelfarePolicy, School of Social Work, Boston University, 264 Bay State Road,Boston, MA 02215; e-mail: rhudson@bu.edu. Currently he edits The PublicPolicy and Aging Report, the quarterly publication of the NationalAcademy on an Aging Society.