The Nation Magazine's latest email has a hard time with the facts. Even the title misrepresents the situation. The Nation doesn't want to keep Social Security out of Wall Street's hands, they want to keep it out of the hands of you and me. They are against choice.
Also, it is worth noting that even if some of Social Security was privatized, there is no requirement that the money be invested in "Wall Street." People could invest anywhere.
The Nation says that with privatization the "returns would not be guaranteed, as they are now." This is a bit of rhetorical slight-of-hand, since presently there is no return at all. The Social Security Trust Fund is the receptacle for all Social Security monies the government receives. Upon receipt, the government issues payment to the various payees, and whatever is left over is transferred to the general fund by means of a bond sale, bonds that only the government can buy and sell. These special bonds are issued to the trust fund, and the cash is moved to the general fund.
Yes, these bonds pay interest, which comes, of course, from the general fund. Are you catching the shell game going on here? There is no cash in the Trust Fund, only special interest-bearing bonds. That interest is paid with deficit spending by the government, spending facilitated by the cash received by selling those bonds to the Trust Fund!
The Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset, is is a liability that will have to be paid back.
The Nation deems it a "successful program." What? How many times has Congress had to "save" the system? How many times have we read news reports about how Social Security will run out of money in 2030, 2015, 2040, or whenever? This is success?
And couple that with the fact that "running out of money" is predicated on the assumption that there are actual assets in the Trust Fund, and we have to conclude that Social Security is bankrupt NOW.
No comments:
Post a Comment