Forum addresses retirement

The Graduate School of Education sponsored a discussion of Social Security and Medicare. As part of a series of discussions on the complex issues facing America at the dawn of the 21st century, the Public Policy Institute at the University's Graduate School of Education and the National Issues Forums Institute sponsored a discussion on the U.S retirement system last Sunday. The forum was organized by Harris Sokoloff -- Executive Director of the Center for School Study Councils at the Graduate School of Education -- and moderated by Public Policy Institute faculty members Julie Zimet and Mark Miller. "This is a different kind of public meeting," Sokoloff said. "It's not a lecture or a general discussion but rather a deliberation on which we weigh the pros and cons of different choices and perhaps come to some agreement on the kinds of policies we want our legislators to enact or at least arrive at greater clarity concerning the future of the retirement system." Zimet added that the forum was intended to be a starting point to get participants thinking about different views and inspire further discussion about retirement benefits. "It is important to be realistic and consider not only what it is we want but what it is we are willing to give up," she said. "We are not going to come up with the solution, but we can start setting roadblocks where we are not willing to go, and that is almost as important as where we are willing to go." Participants in the forum -- who included both members of the Public Policy Institute and local citizens -- discussed three possible scenarios for dealing with the retirement issue. To ensure that Americans can continue to retire with security and dignity, the first option called for the government to do whatever is necessary to keep existing programs in tact, including raising taxes. Proponents of this solution viewed retirement benefits -- such as Social Security and Medicare -- as a right of society. They emphasized the importance of being fair to retirees, who deserve to receive benefits after years of paying into the system to provide for previous generations. The second possibility examined at the forum was cutting retirement benefits and altering eligibility rules to reflect demographic changes. Zimet said that there were 16.5 workers to pay benefits for each retiree in 1950, but now only 3.3 workers support each retiree. She added that this number will continue to decrease as the "baby boomer" generation retires so that by 2020 there will be just 2 workers for each retiree. Proponents of this solution noted that the government is devoting resources to Social Security and Medicare which could be used for other programs, such as education. They viewed paying for the retirement of older Americans as an undue burden on the younger generation and noted that retirees are often able to collect benefits even when they don't need them. The third alternative considered at the forum was replacing Social Security and Medicare with mandatory personal savings accounts. Such a system would be modeled after Chile, which requires citizens to set aside 12 percent of their earnings for retirement. This possibility seemed attractive to some participants because it would make individuals responsible for their own retirement and decrease government involvement in administering benefits. But others claimed that such a policy would be selfish and noted that the government has a responsibility to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. "Many issues can be decided by politicians based on facts, but all the issues we talk about here are based on values," Zimet explained. "There is not a politician who can solve the retirement issue if we are not part of the decision," she added. "It's up to people to set a broad direction before politicians can take action."