Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don’t ‘Enron’ Social Security? The Dem’s new attack on personal accounts rings hollow.
National Review Online ^ | 02.15.02 | Andrew G. Biggs of the Cato Institute

Posted on 02/15/2002 5:53:26 AM PST by callisto

The Democrats are saying "don't 'Enron' Social Security" in yet another attack on President Bush's plans to let workers invest part of their taxes in personal retirement accounts. In a press conference this week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman and fellow Senate Democrats Barbara Boxer and John Corzine beat the Enron-Social Security analogy like a drum. Leading the attack, of course, is Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who equates President Bush's personal account reform plans with the calamitous demise of the giant energy company, which took many workers' retirement savings with it. "I don't want to 'Enron' the people of the United States," said Daschle. "I don't want to see them holding the bag at the end of the day, just like Enron employees have held the bag. I don't want to destroy their Social Security system."

But guess what, Senators? Social Security is already "Enron-ed."

By resorting to these scare tactics, Democratic strategists believe that linking personal accounts to Enron's demise is their best bet for electoral success in the fall. In truth, however, it is today's unreformed Social Security program that most resembles Enron. And personal account-based reform plans are the way to prevent all Americans from suffering retirement losses similar to those of Enron's workers.

Energy giant Enron collapsed amidst allegations of financial impropriety against top company executives. In the process, many Enron employees who had invested their 401(k) contributions in Enron stock lost part or even all of their retirement savings. By tarring personal accounts with the Enron brush, Sen. Daschle believes he can defeat President Bush's plans to introduce personal accounts as part of Social Security reform by claiming that workers with personal accounts could lose their retirement incomes just as Enron employees did.

Daschle's claim is — to put it mildly — ridiculous. Bush's recent reform commission, headed by former Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and AOL/Time Warner head Dick Parsons, proposed letting workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts holding highly diversified stock and bond mutual funds. Even at Enron's height, it constituted less than one percent of the $13.4 trillion U.S. equities market. A worker holding only U.S. stocks would have been only minutely impacted by Enron's demise; a worker diversifying with overseas equities and corporate or government bonds probably wouldn't even have noticed.

In truth, it isn't the president's personal-account plans that most resemble Enron — it's the current Social Security system he's trying to reform that draws the real parallel.

First, Enron used murky "off balance sheet" accounting practices that highlighted its assets and downplayed its debts — as does Social Security's "trust fund." While the fund's trillion dollars in government bonds are "assets" to Social Security, they are debts to the government — which will have to raise taxes or cut other spending to repay them, just as if there had been no trust fund at all. That's why the non-partisan Congressional Research Service stresses that "the trust funds themselves do not hold financial resources to pay benefits." The trust fund is like a private corporation funding its pension plan with bonds it issued to itself — a practice that is illegal in the private sector.

Moreover, under law a private corporation must report its unfunded pension liabilities on its balance sheet. By contrast, when the Social Security Administration releases its annual financial statement, or "Performance and Accountability Report," any mention of the program's multi-trillion dollar unfunded liability is absent.

Second, Enron's employees were dangerously undiversified; some held all of their 401(k) contributions in Enron stock, a step no financial advisor would recommend. Similarly, 60% of Americans receive the majority of their retirement income from Social Security benefits; one third receive 90% or more from Social Security; and for almost 20%, Social Security is all they've got.

Finally, and worst of all, Enron itself went bankrupt, taking many workers' pensions down with it. Likewise with Social Security: its own trustees declare the program insolvent. That won't just affect the very young. A woman as old as 49 today can expect to see her benefits cut by one-quarter during her lifetime. Younger workers will not receive even a single year of full promised benefits. For Social Security to pay full benefits the payroll tax rate must rise by 50%, yet payroll taxes are already the biggest tax for most households. Most analysts think those tax hikes are unacceptable. The public agrees with them.

Personal accounts for Social Security would mitigate these problems. Under plans put forward by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, workers could invest part of their Social Security taxes in investment accounts that they would own and control. By holding these accounts, workers know exactly how much they have set aside for retirement. And the government could not "raid" those funds to pay for non-Social Security spending.

Workers could hold stocks and bonds of literally thousands of companies, plus ultra-safe Treasury bonds if they prefer. This prefunding, which earns a substantially higher rate of return than Social Security's current "pay-as-you-go" financing, makes it easier for Social Security to pay the benefits it has promised. Many workers, particularly those with the lowest incomes, would receive more than Social Security has even promised, but without the 50% tax increase the current system needs to pay those benefits.

Lack of diversification, opaque accounting, and imminent bankruptcy. These terms describe Social Security much as they do Enron's foggy finances. By contrast, President Bush's Social Security commission put forward three reform plans based on personal accounts. All are certified by Social Security's actuaries to pay higher benefits than the current system is capable of, and two of three would maintain Social Security's solvency indefinitely, not just for the 75-year period that most plans try — but fail — to reach.

So where does this leave Senator Daschle? Good question. Daschle rejects all three commission plans and instead proposes personal accounts separate from Social Security. While this implicitly acknowledges that Daschle believes market investment isn't too risky and that personal accounts can be efficiently administered, for Social Security these supplemental accounts are worse than nothing. They do absolutely nothing to address the Social Security problem and would swallow up billions in resources that could be used to reform the system.

Daschle also favors using surpluses to repay debt, then — in an accounting move that would make Enron proud — double-counting the interest savings and crediting them to Social Security. Preventing this, Daschle says, is that the income-tax cuts passed last year by Congress, despite the fact that Social Security has never been financed from income taxes. If Daschle wants to finance Social Security with general revenues — a step President Roosevelt specifically rejected and which both parties ruled out ever since because it would turn Social Security into a "welfare program" — he should say so.

The President has laid his reform cards on the table. So far, all Senator Daschle and anti-reform Democrats have to offer is the vain hope that Social Security can somehow rescue itself. At present, then, the Social Security reform debate is an event at which only one team has shown up. Until reform foes put forward real proposals of their own — a challenge issued by the President's commission, which personal-account opponents failed to take up — we can only conclude that they favor the Social Security status quo. The only problem is that doing nothing allows the system to go broke. And that's the real "Enronization" of Social Security.

— Andrew Biggs is a Social Security analyst at the Cato Institute and was a staff member for the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security.

TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: socialsecurity

1 posted on 02/15/2002 5:53:26 AM PST by callisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: callisto
I would suggest that we are currently "enroning" social security with it under control of the federal govt.
2 posted on 02/15/2002 6:04:10 AM PST by mutchdutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: callisto
Hah! That is like saying don't Enron Enron! Social Security has all the stability of 1,000,000 Enrons when you look at it from an accounting standpoint. A politicians ability to show how stupid they can be about their own doings is only shadowed from view by an incredibly ignorant public and a media who is aiding them so as to not be seen as the match that lit the powder.
3 posted on 02/15/2002 6:06:26 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
Democrats never want to mention their dirty little secret: 6.8 million, mainly unionized, mainly Democrat voters, who work for government are exempt from Social Security taxes and have every dime of their pensions invested in the markets.

The markets are good enough for the base of the Democrat party but not for the rest of us.

4 posted on 02/15/2002 6:12:04 AM PST by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: callisto
The problem with Enron was in the highest levels of management. Who occupies the hightest level of management of Social Security? Isn't the Congress? Are they more trustworthy and less self serving than the Enron management?
5 posted on 02/15/2002 6:48:40 AM PST by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: callisto
A radio announcer in North Dakota asked Kent Conrad (dem senator) about Enron. Conrad was going on and on about how the employees were unable to cash out. Then the announcer said, "But Senator Conrad, isn't that how Social Security is, too? People have to put all their money there, and they can't cash out!"

Conrad had a fit.

6 posted on 02/15/2002 7:10:59 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: callisto
Even if we'd just have the govt put all the money into individual bank accounts (individuals could choose the banks) that can't be accessed until someone retires -- just imagine, that much less in the DC slush fund, and you'd retire much better off than you do in the current system!
7 posted on 02/15/2002 7:13:31 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: callisto
Even at Enron's height, it constituted less than one percent of the $13.4 trillion U.S. equities market

. . . so Enron represents a paper loss of about $100 billion. That's terrible.

The federal government, OTOH, is what-$6,000 billion in debt? The "Social Security Trust Fund" is (at Democrat, and especially Tom Daschle, insistence) 100% pure Federal government debt.

Come to think of it, isn't insistence on borrowing from a program a tipoff that you might intend to rip it off? The sstf is backed by no debt other than the assumption that all your money belongs in the first instance to the government--that your are, IOW, a slave.

8 posted on 02/15/2002 7:13:36 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
6.8 million, mainly unionized, mainly Democrat voters, who work for government are exempt from Social Security taxes

Is this true?!?!? I've never heard this before. If so, this is a huge outrage!
9 posted on 02/15/2002 7:15:48 AM PST by GodBlessRonaldReagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodBlessRonaldReagan
It is true prior to like 1980 or there abouts. Federal employees never paid social security until then. The reasoning was that they had their own system. The new hires after that date do pay social security. I love that town in Texas that opted out of Social Security in total. They are all filthy rich now. It was an experiment which was thought to illustrate that the people cannot be afforded individual responsibilities over matters such as their own retirement. It went horribly wrong from the Gov't point of view. People had accumulated so much money so fast, they didn't know quite what to do!
10 posted on 02/15/2002 7:35:06 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodBlessRonaldReagan;blackdog
While coverage is compulsory for most types of employment, approximately 6.8 million workers did not have any coverage under Social Security in 1999. The majority of these noncovered workers are in State and local governments or the Federal Government.

Office of Research, Evaluation and
Statistics, Social Security Administration.

Beginning January 1, 1983, Federal employees were covered under the Medicare (HI) portion of the Social Security tax, and all Federal employees hired after 1983 are covered under the OASDI portion as well.

In 1997, 71 percent of State and local government workers (16.1 million out of 22.6 million) were covered by Social Security. Beginning January 1, 1984, all employees of nonprofit organizations became covered, and as of April 1983 terminations of Social Security coverage by State government entities were no longer allowed.

State and local employees hired after March 31, 1986 are mandatorily covered under the Medicare Program and must pay hospital insurance (HI) payroll taxes.

Beginning July 1, 1991, State and local employees who were not members of a public retirement system were mandatorily covered under Social Security. This requirement was contained in the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA 1990, Public Law 101-508)."


Alabama. . .93%
Alaska. . .50%
Arizona . . .91%
Arkansas . . .92%
California . . .44%
Colorado. . .31%
Connecticut. . .69%
Delaware. . .61%
Florida. . .86%
Georgia. . .73%
Hawaii. . .66%
Idaho. . .94%
Illinois. . .53%
Indiana. . .89%
Iowa. . .87%
Kansas. . .86%
Kentucky. . .77%
Louisiana. . .14%
Maine. . .49%
Maryland. . .92%
Massachusetts. . .9%
Michigan. . .86%
Minnesota. . .90%
Mississippi. . .91%
Missouri. . .78%
Montana. . .90%
Nebraska . . .88%
Nevada. . .31%
New Hampshire. . .87%
New Jersey. . .93%
New Mexico. . .84%
New York. . .95%
North Carolina. . .92%
North Dakota. . .87%
Ohio. . .3%
Oklahoma. . .89%
Oregon. . .92%
Pennsylvania. . .96%
Rhode Island. . .81%
South Carolina. . .93%
South Dakota. . .93%
Tennessee. . .92%
Texas. . .56%
Utah. . .91%
Vermont. . .95%
Virginia. . .92%
Washington. . .87%
West Virginia. . .88%
Wisconsin. . .98%
Wyoming . . .84%

Source: Office of Research, Evaluation and
Statistics, Social Security Administration.

11 posted on 02/15/2002 7:51:52 AM PST by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LarryLied
Man you are good. What is up with Mass? Not an anomale I presume?
12 posted on 02/15/2002 8:09:18 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: callisto
The Social Security investment accounts, as I understand it, would be voluntary. Nobody would be required to have one.
13 posted on 02/15/2002 8:28:44 AM PST by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: callisto;*Social Security
Bump List
14 posted on 02/15/2002 10:06:18 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
What is up with Mass? Not an anomale I presume?

Bet government workers in Mass and Ohio lobby very hard to keep out of Social Security. Here is why:

Privatize Social Security? Galveston County Did

There is a downside to the Galveston plan not mentioned: pensions are not indexed to inflation as is the case with Social Security. Had Galveston put some money in the stock money however, they would have received far more than the average 6.5% and inflation would have been no problem (it isn't now either but could be).

15 posted on 02/15/2002 10:32:15 AM PST by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
"I love that town in Texas that opted out of Social Security in total. They are all filthy rich now." I would certainly like to know the name of this town and how they all became filthy rich. Do you have that info?
16 posted on 02/16/2002 11:24:39 AM PST by eyesofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson