"Wouldn't it be a progressive achievement to lock Social Security in for everybody alive today and their children?" one person close to the issue asked me. "Why wouldn't we do it? [As for] how you do it, there will be a long discussion with stakeholders to get it done."
Fixing Social Security for everyone alive today and their children? What if an infant who is alive today has a child when she is 42, and that child goes on to live to by 108? In such a scenario, can someone please explain to me the process of passing a law that is guaranteed to remain untouched for 150 years?
The idea that a public program isn't secure because, even according to conservative estimates, it has 100% funding for "only" another 32 years has long one of the dumbest ideas permeating our national discourse. However, the idea that we can impose public policy on the 150th Congress is actually even dumber. In a democracy, all laws can be changed, including those detailed in the Constitution. As such, it is impossible to dictate public policy 75 years from now, when almost everyone in Congress will not even have been born yet, and when everyone currently in Congress will have passed away. You can't pass a law that will "fix" Social Security for 75 or 150 years anymore than the Pittsburgh Steelers can use this year's draft to shore up their offensive line for the 2054 season.
STATE BLOGS
