« Eric Reeves - Fighting for the people of Dafur, Sudan | Main | Zim's economic crisis spirals out of control »
Trust the Government with the Social Security Trust Fund?
Toping today's news is the President's plan to change Social Security. His agenda includes the controversial proposal to give young workers the option of investing their Social Security taxes into personal accounts.
Reacting to this proposal is William McNary, president of USAction, who apparently thundered, "Wall Street, keep your greedy, greasy hands off our Social Security."
Similarly, Democrats and special interest groups, including the AARP, "believe relying on personal investment accounts that are tied to the whims of Wall Street could leave many older Americans vulnerable." [Fox News]
Democrats, Republicans, McNary and others who trust the government with their retirement fund would be wise to consider that the current social security trust funds are completely commingled with the Treasury's general fund and comprise the largest portion of the $3.2 trillion intra-government debt.
In other words, the "assets" held by the two Social Security trust funds, the public pension, are actually un-funded liabilities having been "borrowed" and spent. CEOs in the private sector go to jail for less.
The intra-government loans are notable because they enabled President Clinton to claim a huge "surplus" when in reality the total national debt increased during each year of his presidency. Similarly, the budget deficit in 2004 was $412 billion yet the national debt somehow increase by $596 billion.
Update:
During the question and answer period following today's press conference President Bush made a few statements related to this post (emphasized below):
THE PRESIDENT: I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary personal savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system. I mean, it's got to be a part of a comprehensive package. The reason I feel strongly about that is that we've got a lot of debt out there, a lot of unfunded liabilities, and our workers need to be able to earn a better rate of return on our money to help deal with that debt.Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership. I mean, why should ownership be confined only to rich people? Why should people not be allowed to own and manage their own assets who aren't the, you know, the so-called investor class? I think everybody ought to be given that right. As a matter of fact, Congress felt so strongly that people ought to be able to own and manage their own accounts, they set one up for themselves. You've heard me say, I like to say this, if it's good enough for the Congress, it is -- it ought to be good enough for the workers, to give them that option. The government is never saying, you have to set up a personal savings account. We're saying, you ought to have the right to set up a personal saving account so you can earn a better rate of return on your own money than the government can.
And it's that difference between the rate of return, between what the government gets on your money and what a conservative mix of bonds and stocks can get on your money that will make an enormous difference, and a person being able to build his or her own nest egg that the government cannot spend.
Now, it's very important for our fellow citizens to understand there is not a bank account here in Washington, D.C., where we take your payroll taxes and hold it for you and then give it back to you when you retire. Our system here is called pay-as-you-go. You pay into the system through your payroll taxes, and the government spends it. It spends the money on the current retirees, and with the money left over, it funds other government programs. And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs.The reason I believe that this ought to work is not only should a worker get a better rate of return, not only should we encourage ownership, but I want people to have real assets in the system. I want people to be able to say, here's my mix of bonds and stocks that I own, and I can leave it to whomever I want. And I hear complaints saying, well, you know, there's going to be high -- Wall Street fees are going to fleece the people. There's ways to have fee structures that are fair. As a matter of fact, all you got to do is go to some of these states where they've got personal accounts available for their workers, and you'll find that the fees will be fair.
People say, well, I don't want to have -- take risks. Well, as I had a line in my opening statement, there are ways where you don't have to take risk. People say, I'm worried about the stock market going down right before I retire. You can manage your assets. You can go from bonds and stocks to only bonds as you get older. In other words, we're giving people flexibility to own their own asset. And I think that's a vital part of making sure America is a hopeful place in the future. So not only will these accounts make the system work better, but the accounts are a better deal. The accounts will mean something for a lot of workers that might not have assets they call their own.
Posted by tim at April 28, 2005 8:07 PM
- National Deficit Down but Intragovernmental Loan Scam Continues - Jul 13, 2005
- Buy a Ford (Mustang) - May 12, 2005
- Budget Surplus Follows Tax Cuts - May 09, 2005
- Using Your Refund Wisely - Apr 15, 2005
- Budget Surplus, What Budget Surplus? - Feb 07, 2005
- National Deficit and Debt Continue to Grow - Jan 25, 2005
- The Deficit Shrinks, Debt Remains - Jan 17, 2005
- Prosperity Linked to Economic Freedom - Jan 05, 2005
- Positive Economic News - Nov 30, 2004
- Nobel Laureates Reject Kerry's Economic Plan in Support of Free Trade - Oct 20, 2004










