But there is more to the Social Security story than that expressed in Part I. Of course as a former Republican, I would expect to have received some “return” on my investment (ROI) in this “entitlement” program that I was forced to enroll in.
So let’s do some more math.
Let’s look at a reasonable case where I received as little as a 1.8% interest rate (in addition to inflation) on the money that was managed by my elected Republican and Democrat money handlers in Washington. Although I am a widower, my account would then be capable of supporting twice the current monthly payout to help provide for a spouse until we both reached the age of 93 – even if my spouse had not personally contribute a penny into the account. At age 94, we would become the dreaded freeloading entitlement takers. But my spouse has already passed, so in this case, taxpayers have already won.
No self-respecting free market advocate would be satisfied with
a meager 1.8% return on their investment.
So let’s do some more math.
Suppose the Republican and Democrat money handlers of my
Social Security “escrow” account had wisely invested the money I turned over to them so that I could realize a 3.1% earnings in addition to the hedge for inflation, my single account would then be able to support myself, my spouse and one other person such as a child, or someone who may have had the misfortune to be disabled, or someone who otherwise is unable to support themselves – for at least 30 years. I’m quite happy to contribute to those less fortunate.
So basically I’m saying to all my Republicans friends and any other opponents of the Social Security system who argue that the system is a form of welfare and is going bankrupt, grow up and DO THE MATH. I don’t expect to live to be 110, so you have already won. You who are our elected officials don’t need to increase the Social Security tax on today’s workers; you don’t need to reduce the payout schedule for retirees. You who are our elected officials do need to take responsibility for cleaning up your money
management and accounting skills so we all can see the program is actually solvent and a decent way of helping the 99% prepare for a sustainable retirement.
What we need is more transparency and better accounting.
For the American worker, the Social Security’s financial woes have nothing to do with the basic design of this particular government “entitlement”
program as long as elected government officials do not use the account for
general operating expenses or perpetual war. Its potential financial insolvency is not due to its basic design or philosophy, but rather due to the inept money management /accounting skills of Congress, not because American workers and their employers haven’t contributed their fair
share to the program. Although every case is different, I suspect that for the vast majority of American workers, Social Security is a viable earned annuity and not an entitlement used as a pejorative term.
Knowing the “legal” corruption that exists on Wall Street, I have nightmares about turning this vast amount of capital over to them for their management – because it would be gone in a heartbeat. The money managers on Wall Street will slyly, silently and certainly divert our savings into their outrageous bonuses and compensation packages. Privatization of Social Security is the worst possible alternative for the 99% but the best possible alternative for the 1% on Wall Street. We 99% should be able to educate ourselves sufficiently to sort through the smoke screen of disinformation and fear mongering that the 1% (many of whom are in Congress) have already initiated under the guise of balancing the budget by cutting “Entitlements.”
At least I can sleep at night knowing that it is next to impossible for me, as a new retiree, to be able to take more out of Social Security than I put in over 49 years of contributing to the fund – even if the ROI is zero.
No Comments