John Boehner, March 18, 2005

I turned on the news the other day and found myself watching a brief discussion about Social Security. The anchor had arranged a debate between representatives from the pro-reform and the anti-reform sides. The anti-reform person made the argument that nothing really needed to be changed. What struck me was his rationale. He said that the current system will still have enough money to pay 73% of promised benefits after 2042, and therefore there was no problem.

Let’s assume that he’s correct, and the system will have enough to pay 73% of what’s promised to people retiring from 2042 and beyond. Now imagine that were true today. Would you want to tell someone on the verge of retirement, "Sorry, we know you were promised this amount, but we can only pay you 73% of that?" Of course not.

Look at it another way. Can you walk into a grocery store and try to buy $10 worth of food with $7? Can you go to a vending machine and put in $.70 for a $1 drink? Of course not. That’s not how the world works, and that’s not how the government should operate. WE wouldn’t accept a system that only paid us 70% of what’s promised; why should we expect our children to? We shouldn’t.

As I’ve gone around and talked with people about Social Security I’ve found that most are interested precisely because they’re worried about their children and grandchildren. They may disagree on how, but they all want to make sure their family is taken care of.

Social Security has been a great success story and has served many people well since it’s creation in 1935. But the fact of the matter is that society has changed and the way we provide for our retirement needs to change too.

The current system is fundamentally flawed in the way it treats each generation of retirees. If a person retired in 1980, they received back all of the money they paid into Social Security within 2.8 years (at around age 68). In 1980 the average life expectancy was 73, so that was a pretty good deal.

For people who’ve retired recently in 2003, they will need to live to the age of 82 to recover all of the money they put in, five years past the current average life expectancy. Our children who will begin retiring in 2030 will need to live even longer.

What was once a great deal simply isn’t and won’t be anymore. Raising taxes won’t correct these flaws for long -- even the most aggressive tax hikes will only keep the system going for another six or seven years. Besides, when Social Security was founded workers were taxed 2% of their income; we now pay 12.4%, or $1 out of every $8 to Social Security. It’s unfair to ask our children to pay more than previous generations for a lower return on their money.

"But," people ask me, "isn’t change expensive?" Let’s go back to the debate I was watching. The anti-reform person tried arguing that even if there was a problem, the "transition costs" are simply too great to bear. The thing is, transitioning to a new system will save us a lot of money we’d otherwise owe some time down the road. Think of it like refinancing your house. You pay a little more in the short-term with the hope of saving a lot of money long-term.

This is why we need to think bold and long-term while we consider ways to save the system. Social Security has been a critical source of income for retired and disabled people, and we must work to preserve and strengthen that. But we can’t be blinded by nostalgia for a broken system or casual about the problems it’ll cause our families down the road. The time for change is now.

Congressman John Boehner, a Republican, represents Ohio's Eighth Congressional District, which includes Miami, Butler, Preble, Darke, and Mercer Counties.