"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, first Inaugural Address; March 4, 1801
In my interpretation of this statement by Jefferson, I don't think he would approve of the US Government taking 7.5% of my salary and 7.5% on top of that from my employer for the past 25 plus years with the promise of income when I retire in return, then dissolving social security with nada to me. If it happened anywhere but within the government, that scenario would be fraud.
To me, a lot of this discussion about reform of social security is just more politicians trying to get their hands on my money. Putting that much cash in front of them is inviting a pork fest and I know I'd get screwed. I don't trust politicians with my money no matter which side of the aisle they sit on, so I would fight every effort to bring it to the table because I DON'T TRUST THEM.
Why would business care about this? Because you never see 7.5% of your salary that goes directly from your employer to social security - in addition to the 7.5% that comes off the top of your check before you get it. The only reason why business would back this is if they save money, which means they can legally give you a pay cut.
Here's a clue:
Businesses push Bush Social Security proposal
By DIANE STAFFORD
The Kansas City Star
As President Bush begins his second term, one of his key economic goals — privatization of some part of Social Security — has earned top attention from big business.
A new business coalition called Compass, which stands for the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security, has committed more than $5 million to promote the idea.
Backers, who include members of the Business Roundtable, the National Restaurant Association and other influential trade groups, believe that the alternative to private Social Security accounts is a higher payroll tax.
To help deter that outcome, the coalition will pay for direct mail and television advertising to support Bush's proposal.
The National Association of Manufacturers already has created a group, the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, to lobby against payroll tax increases and for privatization.
Labor groups are lining up on the other side. The AFL-CIO, for example, says that privatization will benefit business — particularly the securities industry — more than individual Social Security investors.
Critics say that fees the industry receives from managing the privatized accounts could produce conflict-of-interest situations and do more to enrich brokerages than individual account holders.
Separately, a Hudson retirement survey, based on a national poll of 2,170 U.S. workers, reported Thursday that 45 percent of the work force didn't think it had enough money set aside for a comfortable retirement.
About three-fourths said they expected to have to work at least part time during their “retirement years.”
One in five of those surveyed said Social Security would provide the biggest chunk of their retirement income.