The latest polls are out in the battle over personal accounts for Social Security, and what they show is disappointing -- most Americans have been led astray by false claims about the reliability of Social Security, and are unaware of the value inherent in President Bush's proposed personal-account plan. Let's look at the facts.
Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid have been quick to deny that there is any danger of Social Security going bankrupt. They go on to assure Americans that when the trust fund runs out in 2042, Social Security will still be able to pay 70 percent of intended benefits. Perhaps Reid and others need a lesson in economics. When a financial entity admits that it cannot pay its debts and agrees to pay fractions on the dollar -- say 70 cents for every dollar owed -- that's called going bankrupt. This is exactly where Social Security is headed, and the Democrats answer is to do nothing. Personal accounts are the only way to ensure that those who pay into Social Security today will receive their fair shares of benefits come retirement time.
Yet, Democrats insist that personal accounts are inherently flawed and that putting your retirement money into the stock market is a risky venture. This statement, while factually true, is intellectually dishonest and does not tell the full story.
In a personal retirement account, the money set aside which normally would have gone to the government is yours to do with as you please. If you like taking risks, by all means invest in the stock market or mutual funds. If these seem overly venturous, invest your money in T-bills, guaranteed government bonds. Those are safe, right? They'd better be -- that's how the government currently "invests" your Social Security taxes. The only difference is that under Bush's new plan, the money you paid would still be yours and could be passed to your heirs, rather than reverting to government control.
Once all of these facts are brought to light, many still oppose personal accounts, saying that the conversion to this system would add too much to the national debt. While the transitional period would be costly (see: Chile), sticking with the same system would be just as costly, as the government would be forced to drastically increase borrowing or drastically cut benefits when the trust fund runs out. Doing nothing solves nothing, yet this seems to be the Democrats' current plan.
It is a testament to how blind liberals have become by their hatred of President Bush that they are unwilling or unable to engage in an honest debate on the Social Security issue. Instead, they throw around factually vacant bombs like "Bush will turn Social Security over to Ken Lay!" or, in the case of Harry Reid, equating Bush's plan to Vegas gambling. It is sadly ironic that a party that has frequently tried to label itself "progressive" has planted itself in the middle of the road to progress and success, with a death grip on a "Do Not Enter" sign.
Sadly, these deceitful tactics seem to be working, as support for the plan hovers around 40 percent. Support is higher among the "investor class," which is about half the population, but even there it is only around 65 percent. That shouldn't come as a surprise when those most likely to benefit from this plan -- young adults -- would rather trust Jon Stewart for their news than do some research themselves. I can only hope that most people wake up and find the facts for themselves before the entire Social Security system collapses under its own weight.
Write to Tim at redbaron.strikesagain@gmail.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
