I’ve tried to maintain interest in politics, but it is challenging. Republican candidates demean each other while the Democrats demean the Republicans ranking highest in the polls at the moment.   The spectacle brings to mind an article titled “On Weasels and Removal Thereof Though Unified Action” by Susan Westfall. The author wrote that she “…decided to settle on a word to use when referring to politicians…and special interest groups who work so hard to sell the sovereign countries of the world down the road for personal gain, all the while espousing their good intentions for the ‘general welfare’ of the people.”  “Ultimately, I settled upon the term ‘weasel’.” That term is used to describe people who are acting in “…a cunning/and or deceitful fashion to achieve desired ends.”

We need fewer politicians willing act like weasels to buy enough votes to be reelected. Government entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are popular with voters and any politician mentioning changes to improve the long term economics of the programs will face the wrath of voters. Too many politicians buy votes by defending both of the programs even though they know the programs need to be fixed.

President Clinton spent a year at town hall meetings talking about Social Security and that we should “…fix the roof while the sun is shining.” He was and is a clever politician, and he didn’t lay out details of how to fix the program. That resulted in people nodding knowingly that something should be done.

George W. Bush wasn’t as clever. He actually suggested that we begin to fix the Social Security by letting younger people voluntarily put a third of their Social Security “contributions” into private retirement accounts similar to IRAs. The account owner could then select how the money was invested, and they could select treasury bills or insured certificates of deposit if they wanted to be conservative to assure the money was there for them when they retired. They could also select the beneficiary, while Social Security is limited to dependent children and legal spouses (and is therefore homophobic).  Democrats were mortified. Robert Reich, who had been Clinton’s Labor Secretary, responded, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” Alliances were formed with older people who were told Bush wanted to destroy Social Security by “privatizing it.” I was discouraged that members of Congress and evidently their voting constituents believed the government could more intelligently manage money than the people who originally earned the money.  Bush lost, and future politicians received a clear message. Act like a weasel if you want to be reelected.

I have one hope, and that is some future politician will have the courage to offer what Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed in an address given November 14, 1934. “It takes so very much money to provide even a moderate pension for everybody, that when the funds are raised from taxation only a “means test” must necessarily be made a condition of the grant of pensions.” He not only recommended a means test to determine whether people should receive a benefit, he also said he believed the taxpayers should only support the program for thirty years (until about 1965) at which time it would be replaced by private accounts.  When Bush’s opponents commented that Bush wanted to “destroy FDR’s legacy program,” they apparently believed what he had proposed didn’t go nearly far enough to implement FDR’s vision.

(Some readers might hesitate to believe the previous paragraph. A link is provided for those who want to read FDR’s comments in context. I predict you will find what I’ve written is accurate. Links are also provided to speeches by President Clinton and George W. Bush on the Social Security web site.)

Realistically, FDR probably would have been pleased with the backlash at Bush for suggesting changes. He even predicted that once the program was put in place “…no damn politician…” would ever be able to change it.  An advisor told FDR that Social Security wasn’t good economics. FDR famously responded, “I guess you’re right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They were politics all the way through.”

A few years back there was a bumper sticker popular in areas of the country where you would find large concentrations of retirees on vacation that read, “We’re spending our children’s inheritance.”   I hadn’t seen the sticker lately, and it occurred to me that message is no longer valid.  We retirees are no longer satisfied with spending only the children’s inheritance.  The Social Security program is diligently collecting substantial portions of incomes from the salaries of young workers and transferring it to those of us who are retired after skimming the cost of operating the bureaucracy.  Not fixing the program means we are willing to take that money with the promise workers under the age of about forty won’t receive equivalent benefits unless more money is taken from paychecks of the shrinking numbers of employed younger people.

I have advocated ending the cost of living adjustments to Social Security beneficiaries, and I’m guessing that one suggestion means there’s no risk of me being elected to any political position. However, I promise I’ll vote for people who show the courage to do something to improve future prospects for the country. My appeal is for others to join me in a quest to show the weasels the door. The other alternative is to wait for the eventual bankruptcy of the U.S. economy and the end of those monthly Social Security checks. I don’t think I’m the only grandparent who is willing to see changes to the Social Security program that would  give our families a better future.