Social Security
I'm intrigued by the ongoing debate caused by the looming Social Security shortfall. So much time is being wasted discussing George Bush's plan for personal management of portions of our accounts, that the real crisis is being completely side-stepped.
In my earlier post, referring to the work of Dr. Ichak Adizes, I talked about his theory of lifecycles of business. He spends a great deal of time discussing pre-bureaucracy, bureaucracy, aristrocracy and death of a company. What is fascinating about this discussion is that the ENERGY necessary to move an organization from any of these pre-death states, is astounding. In essence, an entire organizational restructuring is necessary in order to effect a rebalance of the basic "form" of the organization.
There is no debate that government is bureaucratic by nature. However, Dr. Adizes theories are sound. I wonder what would happen if the government were reorganized to provoke it into the "prime" state of the lifecycle. Would the surplus that is being allocated to other government spending be reallocated back to the general Social Security fund? Are enough people even discussing that issue?
And, then I have to ask myself...how badly is the medicare issue being ignored? I see lots of talk about the size of the issue (a crisis sixfold more dire than Social Security), but no clear sense of any plan or action. At least very little that is being communicated to the taxpayer.
The power and authority is lying with the bureaucrats, not the entrepreneurs. There cannot be change when the balance of power is sitting in the wrong camp. Bureaucracy is hampering quality of life for the Boomers as we roar our way into the 50's and 60's. How do we get government into a state of "Prime"? How can we possibly move the machine?
Coming in the next few days...I'll be posting a link to an intriguing paper, by highly regarded Mathematics Professor at UCLA, Professor Mark Burgin. He posits a theory of aging that links closely with the Gen Plus vision. Stay tuned.
Posts
3 comments:
Congratulations on your innovative and much needed website. Jobs, social security, and health costs are all issues that concern those already retired and those about to join their ranks. I, for one, certainly want to use my skills and experience as long as I can. What do you think about the current government proposal to link social security benefits to income?
I have a problem when government confuses social responsibility with fiscal juggling. With the current Republican agenda so focused on big business, it makes it impossible to look at the social issue without distrusting the fiscal agenda.
Current Canadian policy in regard to "Old Age Security" (O.A.S.) income (separate from the Canada Pension Plan) makes an interesting comparison to the means limitations the U.S. government is currently proposing for Social Security benefits. Several years ago, the Canadian federal government (generally regarded as having more liberal social policies than the U.S. government) set an income limitation of $39,000 for a single person and $75,000 for a couple. Persons who earn more than this amount do not receive a monthly O.A.S. check. For a few years prior to this policy, the government had a "clawback" policy; that is, if you earned more than a certain sum (if my memory serves me well, it was $57,000), the government made proportional deductions from your O.A.S. benefits. Then this policy was abandoned in favor of the income limit described above. How do I know? I'm a Canadian, and the cut off date for the income limit of $39,000 was, unfortunately, just in time for my 65th birthday!
Post a Comment