Posted on 09/14/2011 6:11:20 PM PDT by mandaladon
In the late 1970s, county employees in Galveston, Tex., made an unusual and risky decision that they thought would help secure their financial future. They took advantage of a federal provision available at the time and opted out of Social Security.
Their decision was born out of a fear that the federal entitlement program, designed to keep elderly and disabled Americans out of poverty, might not be around in the future. After careful study, the county employees chose an alternative that allowed them to open personal savings accounts.
Today, Galveston has become a poster child for critics of the Social Security system who say the decision is proof that there is a better way. Among those critics are at least two Republicans in the 2012 presidential race, which in recent days has centered on whether it is better to fix or to replace Social Security.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been the most prominent critic of the current system, calling it a “monstrous lie” and a “Ponzi scheme” and, in doing so, taking on one of the nation’s most sacrosanct programs.
Though polls show that Americans are concerned about Social Security’s long-term viability, they remain largely opposed to any of the changes to it proposed in recent years. The idea of creating private accounts proved unpopular when President George W. Bush suggested it in 2005.
Perry has revived the debate and pointed to Galveston’s program as a better approach. In his 2010 book, “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington,” he wrote that “employees in those private plans, having exercised their liberty at Washington’s sufferance, are reaping the benefits.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I'm sure that has long since been identified as a "loophole" and "fixed".
bump
Mitt Romney wouldn’t approve. Given his remarks, he believes that SS can only be a FEDERAL program.....
You are right, they closed that ‘loophole’ long ago.
On average the plan has done a 6 1/2 percent return which is about 3 times the return from SS.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm
PS: It thoroughly disgusts me how republicans during a debate will suddenly use liberal democrat rhetoric and talking points to attack one another.
The way Romney and Bachmann went after Perry was sickening. I could easily imagine Bill Clinton spewing such demagogic talking points to attack Perry’s beliefs on Socialist Security and the thing with the drug company and that stupid vaccine. On the other hand, Perry used democrat type talking points when discussing illegal aliens. ALL of it leaves whomever is left as the nominee open to unending criticism from the other side when the general election campaign gets underway.
You NEVER see the dems attack other dems in such ways.
Yes, it has.
“This is worth studying and debating.”
Why? Neither political party has any intention whatsoever of getting rid of SS or reforming it or anything else. We’re stuck with this albatross for the foreseeable future.
Maybe we can convince Galveston to hire everyone in the united states in some kind of scheme where all US employers lease workers through Galveston an Galveston gets a fee of 1/2 percent! The employers would for example pay Galveston 100K for a workers services and Galveston would keep $500. Meanwhile the Ponzi Scheme gets squat!
That was pre crash, how about now?
Now that’s a clever idea.
As Herman Cain has pointed out, the Chilean model is worth studying and debating.
Here is a video of José Piñera, who architected the Chilean pension system based on principles he learned from Milton Friedman.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8215036437587175272
Romney is an ass, read his book you will see his core belief about SS is same as Perry. I like Mitt but using this issue to take down fellow Repub on issue that they are in agreement on is pure political bullshit. Mitt loses big points on my decision matrix on who to support. Mitt needs to express his core beliefs not just debate for poll numbers.
Sometimes it helps if you read the article. ;)
Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a “banking model” rather than an “investment model.” To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers’ contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We’ve averaged about 6.5% annual rate of return over 24 years. And we’ve provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship, disability.
'the accounts are getting their guaranteed minimum of 3.75 or 4 percent interest, he said.'
The plan still requires all persons to contribute into a plan, instead of keeping your own money and investing as how you plan. There should be some opt out for any plan to allow for your own rise or fall.
bump
On Monday, Republican Presidential candidate, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, introduced the SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, which has been described as a cross bewtween the Chilean model and the TSP. The plan would be the largest reduction of government spending in history. It does NOT raise the payroll tax, increase the retirement age, reduce payments or privatize the system. It has been approved by the SSI actuary who said the plan would have 100% participation. THE MEDIA HAS NOT COVERED THIS STORY. Its obvious if you think Herman Cain has a good idea or that the Chilean plan should be looked into. THIS IS A BILL THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE HOUSE. ITS REAL! ITS NOT A THOUGHT. ITS NOT AN IDEA. You can find the bill at McCotter2012.com or on his house website.
Can somone PLEASE explain to me how and why this bill has been BLACKED OUT BY THE MEDIA?
For what it’s worth on this thread:
Romnay has claimed that “Perry is scaring” the elderly now on Medicare.
But it is Romney who is “scaring” the elderly now on Social Security by claiming that people like Perry want to make things worse for those already getting Social Security.
When whether it’s Paul Ryan or Governor Perry, they want to adjust NEW Social Security benefit plans and payroll tax plans, for those not yet retired and offer even something better altogether for those who are not yet working.
All those things are necessary to start making Social Security solvent for those now on it, and this with substantial time already paying into it.
But Romney and others are ignoring that truth because they have no good ideas, only the single idea to somehow keep the existing Social Security plan limping along, from one crisis to another.
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.