Exactly. Let me draw a picture for you. First, the Cato Institute says there's a $12 Trillion dollar deficit in Social Security for the Boomers. So, to make it easier to illustrate, let's say from 2010 to 2040 we have a $12 Trillion shortfall.
Next, the proposals I've seen show creating a private account - let's say a start date of 2007 to give them a good amount of time to pass it. Sec. Snow says the government will BORROW money to set up these private accounts and pay SS benefits while participants contribute to their private accounts - you can view his speech on the White House web site.
So, let's say 20% of the approx. 100,000,000 workers in the US today want to opt for the private accounts. What I've seen thus far states a maximum of $2000 per year for each participant, so we'll use that figure. 200,000,000X2000=40 Billion. So the government borrows $40 Billion per year to cover the costs of the accounts, and I'm assuming it gets added on to the federal deficit.
Here's how it breaks down as a time frame illustration:
(----------------------2007 start of private savings ---------------------->
(-----------2007 start of gov't borrowing $40 Billion per year------------->
(-------2008 incremental start of saving account offset to SS-------------->
(-------2008 interest starts accumulating on borrowed money----------------->
Now do you see any problems with that picture? The government is BORROWING money (and racking up interest) so people can contribute to private savings accounts during the time frame that SS is ALREADY $12 Trillon dollars short, and the incremental recoupment from the savings accounts won't peak until after all the baby boomers have retired because we're starting them right before the shortfall and not enough of the boomers can accumulate money in them to offset what they collect from Social Security!
It's a recipe for financial disaster and we'll be left holding the bag!
"So, let's say 20% of the approx. 100,000,000 workers in the US today want to opt for the private accounts. What I've seen thus far states a maximum of $2000 per year for each participant, so we'll use that figure. 200,000,000X2000=40 Billion. So the government borrows $40 Billion per year to cover the costs of the accounts, and I'm assuming it gets added on to the federal deficit."
From what I can tell you have a major flaw in your numbers. 100,000,000x.20 (20%)= 20,000,000x2,000=$40,000,000 per year. Therefore you're calculation of 30 years deficit is $1.2B. Considering the budget today is currently $2.5B and assuming the same budget rate for the same 30 year period, and we know that is a joke, the budgets for these 30 years would total $75B. That means that 1.6% of the total budget over 30 years is not available for spending. I think they should certainly be able to find 1.6% worth of opportunities to reduce spending.
Keep in mind that is the minimum and it assumes a constant budget, not the typical increases in the budget. Even if I default at your $12B number, then 16% of the total constant budget is the scope of the problem you describe and they should certainly be able to reduce spending by 16% over 30 years. You seem to be fighting against freedom to protect the out of control spending.
Regardless, the issue isn't that the government has to borrow to allow the people to keep $2,000 per year in private investments, the issue is that they are spending that money today in the general budget. The issue is that their spending is out of control and I frankly think it is their responsibility to live within their budget. I have to, so should they.
I don't understand your stance against people keeping more of their earnings just because the government has lost control of their spending.