Social Security sellout

The Washington Times ^ | March 9, 2005 | Peter Ferrara

[neverdem]

Only this White House staff would send the president out to sell personal accounts for Social Security with the message they don't really solve the problem. Is it any wonder then that the more George W. Bush talks about personal accounts the lower they sink in the polls?

Of course, this message is totally wrong. The chief actuary of Social Security has already scored four proposals for personal accounts alone, with no benefit cuts or tax increases, as achieving permanent solvency for Social Security. But the White House staff doesn't understand them, or how personal accounts can eliminate long-term Social Security deficit.

The bill proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, and Sen. John Sununu, New Hampshire Republican, is a good example of how this works. The bill would allow workers on average to shift about 6.4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax to the personal accounts. To the extent a worker exercises this option over his career, the account would then substitute for a proportionate share of his future Social Security retirement benefits.

The official score of the Social Security chief actuary shows these accounts would reduce currently projected Social Security expenditures for retirement benefits 40 percent by 2040, 67 percent by 2050, 80 percent by 2056, and ultimately by 95 percent. Workers would then get much higher benefits through their personal accounts, because of the much higher returns in the private capital markets than Social Security promises, let alone what it can pay.

Yet, with almost half the Social Security payroll tax still going into the old system, but retirement benefit expenditures cut 67 percent, 80 percent and ultimately 95 percent, Social Security is left in permanent surplus. This is not a matter of conjecture, philosophy, or even economic analysis. It is ... mathematical fact.

[NutCrackerBoy]

At some point, I sat down and looked at what Social Security would do for me. It made me sick to think they took all that money from me that I could have invested. It is a lousy deal. Private accounts make it just a little sweeter.

Wake up, America! Look at your pay stub.

[oreolady]

I wholly agree, "deeply saddened" (like daschle), that this message isn't getting out more clear, with examples and much clarification and talk of investment averages over time, values that would accumulate, even with low-income earners.
Seems GW isn't getting the best advice as to how to get message across, also in quelling the lies and distortions that press and moonbats send out.

[rebel_yell2]

I have cringed every time I see a pro/con debate on this. The Republicans are getting their clocks cleaned because they don't refute Dim claims that private accounts "do nothing to address the deficits." Just listening, I would question why they are a good idea. Why bother to debate if you don't understand the issue you are championing? Let's get the "A" team on the field and argue this issue properly.

[newfarm4000n]

Social security like the farm supports is one of those Ultra-Liberal programs that people in the rural area's and the South just can't seem to want to give up after all those decades of Democrat rule.

[Spirited]

Bump