Disenthrall is a Hard Road to Travel - Especially When It"s the Only Way Out of Deep Difficulty
With a touch of inimitable eloquence, Abe Lincoln once warned the people: "We must disenthrall ourselves.
" It was at a precarious time when the unity of the nation was at stake.
Mr.
Lincoln asked folks to get down in the dirt and start digging their way out of deep trouble-liberate themselves.
At least, that's my sense of what he meant by "disenthrall.
" The same advice fits the urgent need for government to act on today's national urgencies around public welfare issues-and the shocking fiscal condition of our Social Security apparatus, for instance.
It's hopelessly beyond the point of rescue by last-minute tampering, tweaking, misleading trickery, or perpetuation of Shell Game maneuvers by Congress and federal agencies.
What was born as a well-intended means to aid the dependent elderly during the Depression, now seems likely to end up as a national humiliation.
As social enterprise innovator and author Marc Freedman explains in his recent book, Encore: "For more than 50 years, we've treated older workers much the same as we've treated farmers.
We've paid farmers not to grow crops; we've tempted older people to stop working.
"We've said: Leave your job at 62 or 65 (earlier if possible) and we'll provide a financial package that will secure your dream of Golden Years of leisure and playtime.
" That sorry promise was first made more than 70 years ago to folks obsessed by fears of poverty, who clung to the sour assumption that work is a burden, not a blessing.
Not long after, the program was construed as a welfare boon to widows and orphans, as well as the physically impaired.
Later, it became a convenient match to most non-government pension programs.
The combination gave many large industrial employers the option to make sudden cuts in their payroll costs, under the pretense that removing older folks from the workplace to "early retirement" would "benefit the economy.
" The "pay as you go" fantasy of Social Security financing and the reckless overburdening of many private and other public pension mechanisms has piled up enormous obligations that will fall due on an ultimate day of reckoning when cash flow is completely reversed-and the character and substance of key social contracts and commitments turned around as well.
Who gets called to account for this predicament? Who in the ranks of political incumbency or legislative leadership-or among the rest of us with a major stake in the outcomes-will stand up, speak out, and insist on responsible answers to this horrific national dilemma? Somebody I'm proud to hear from again on this subject is Peter G.
"Pete" Peterson-investment guru, shrewd economist, and former chairman of the Council 0n Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and onetime Secretary of Commerce.
He's frank, savvy, and full of what my dear sainted mother called "gumption.
" Pete Peterson is for me the first notable, knowledgeable observer to expose the connection between the curse of outdated and unbearable social welfare designs, and the need to make sure a longer-lived workforce can contribute what it takes to assure a sound economic future.
He's provided what has been called "a clear, concise, and unvarnished look at America's political and fiscal deterioration.
" His message has been echoed by Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan, past chairmen of the Federal Reserve.
Yet, the deadly questions remain: "Who in the halls and cloakrooms of Congress or among the new fiscal watchdogs in downtown D.
C.
will sound the call to disenthrall? "Who is strong and wise enough to risk the raw political consequences that underlie and enable sound social policies and humane concern for those most at risk?"
" It was at a precarious time when the unity of the nation was at stake.
Mr.
Lincoln asked folks to get down in the dirt and start digging their way out of deep trouble-liberate themselves.
At least, that's my sense of what he meant by "disenthrall.
" The same advice fits the urgent need for government to act on today's national urgencies around public welfare issues-and the shocking fiscal condition of our Social Security apparatus, for instance.
It's hopelessly beyond the point of rescue by last-minute tampering, tweaking, misleading trickery, or perpetuation of Shell Game maneuvers by Congress and federal agencies.
What was born as a well-intended means to aid the dependent elderly during the Depression, now seems likely to end up as a national humiliation.
As social enterprise innovator and author Marc Freedman explains in his recent book, Encore: "For more than 50 years, we've treated older workers much the same as we've treated farmers.
We've paid farmers not to grow crops; we've tempted older people to stop working.
"We've said: Leave your job at 62 or 65 (earlier if possible) and we'll provide a financial package that will secure your dream of Golden Years of leisure and playtime.
" That sorry promise was first made more than 70 years ago to folks obsessed by fears of poverty, who clung to the sour assumption that work is a burden, not a blessing.
Not long after, the program was construed as a welfare boon to widows and orphans, as well as the physically impaired.
Later, it became a convenient match to most non-government pension programs.
The combination gave many large industrial employers the option to make sudden cuts in their payroll costs, under the pretense that removing older folks from the workplace to "early retirement" would "benefit the economy.
" The "pay as you go" fantasy of Social Security financing and the reckless overburdening of many private and other public pension mechanisms has piled up enormous obligations that will fall due on an ultimate day of reckoning when cash flow is completely reversed-and the character and substance of key social contracts and commitments turned around as well.
Who gets called to account for this predicament? Who in the ranks of political incumbency or legislative leadership-or among the rest of us with a major stake in the outcomes-will stand up, speak out, and insist on responsible answers to this horrific national dilemma? Somebody I'm proud to hear from again on this subject is Peter G.
"Pete" Peterson-investment guru, shrewd economist, and former chairman of the Council 0n Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and onetime Secretary of Commerce.
He's frank, savvy, and full of what my dear sainted mother called "gumption.
" Pete Peterson is for me the first notable, knowledgeable observer to expose the connection between the curse of outdated and unbearable social welfare designs, and the need to make sure a longer-lived workforce can contribute what it takes to assure a sound economic future.
He's provided what has been called "a clear, concise, and unvarnished look at America's political and fiscal deterioration.
" His message has been echoed by Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan, past chairmen of the Federal Reserve.
Yet, the deadly questions remain: "Who in the halls and cloakrooms of Congress or among the new fiscal watchdogs in downtown D.
C.
will sound the call to disenthrall? "Who is strong and wise enough to risk the raw political consequences that underlie and enable sound social policies and humane concern for those most at risk?"