The Times on Social Security
By Nathan Nance
Guest post by Nate Nance
This is probably going to be my last post about Social Security this year, if I can help it. I don't want you guys thinking that I'm a one-note guy. There are plenty of other things I would like to cover in more depth before the ball drops in Times Square, so I might move my dork-like focus to other policy areas.
Having said all of that, I really want some feedback on this NY Times piece. Jeff Madrick's article is about the most informative thing I've seen in the print media on the pros and cons of private accounts. He covers both sides fairly well, but comes to the same conclusion I did, that privatization was just too risky and leaves too many people in a lurch. The numbers don't lie, as they say, and Madrick goes over both sides of the equation, especially in the benefit cuts for every dollar put into private accounts.
I think this is one of the best pieces to refute the claims made about private accounts being a "reform" of Social Security rather than totally stripping it for parts. But, like I said, I want your feedback after reading it.
This is a guest post by Nathan Nance. Nate is a sports/news clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald and writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com.
Posted by Nathan Nance at December 23, 2004 09:35 PM
| TrackBack
Since Nate wanted some feedback, I'll put in mine.
At the end of the article, the writer says that the President's plan "will divide people into winners and losers". that should come as no surprise from a President who sees the world in black and white terms. I also agree with the writers premise that benefits would decline for many. My question is, why do so many Republican-voting people think that taxes are the ultimate profanity. No, I really don't like paying as much income tax as I do, but that's just part of life. By raising the FICA withholding from 12.5% to 14%, social security would be solvent for at least the next 30 to 40 years. Yet that's not even on the table.
My beef with privatization is that it takes advantage of lower income workers that have less education than me, and who would not be as astute about investment decisions. My company employs plenty of people who wouldn't know an index fund from a money market fund if they fell into one. To me, a lot of the push for privatization looks like it is coming from the investment firms on Wall Street who are looking for ways to increase their commission fees in the wake of the tech bubble collapse.
