Push to privatize Social Security is diversionary fraud [NUTCASE ALERT]

Albany (NY) Times-Union ^ | 1/29/2005 | A. RICHARD GOODMAN

[NYS_Eric]

The Bush administration's push for urgent partial privatization of Social Security is the most dishonest, economically unsound, diversionary fraud ever devised.

It is a complete waste of time, perhaps only rivaled by a previous Republican Congress's ignoring all of the real problems facing our country by diverting attention to Clinton's sex life.

To promote reforming Social Security as an immediate crisis demanding attention, is a clear statement that the administration is self-serving and it believes that the American electorate is stupid. Any Congressman that supports this wasteful activity should be vigorously opposed in the election two years from now.

Let's consider real problems:

[1] Growing budget deficits caused by an ill-conceived war, fought by inadequate forces, without any consideration of adequate financing. The reasons for the conflict were false and what we were getting into was less than superficially understood. We were told not to worry because we were assured that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for it.

[2] Bush's unnecessary and poorly targeted tax cuts, along with the war, are causing dangerous fiscal deficits and dramatically increased national debt. They must be rescinded, not extended.

[3] Lack of federally financed unemployment insurance for those out of work after 26 weeks, as was available under all previous administrations since the 1930's.

[4] Need for assistance to the states to pay for grandiose administration projects like "No Child left Behind" and medical program improvements not financed.

[5] Worsening trade deficits as American jobs are being exported needlessly.

All of these issues deserve attention before wasting time thinking about what might happen to our Social Security program 40 years from now. The issue of partial privatization of Social Security is a totally undesirable sham.

Of course, people should have additional savings if they can. But Social Security represents a minimum government guarantee to avoid poverty. It is important to note that stock market investment of Social Security funds will serve to increase the prices of securities (and lead to significant financial industry commissions) but have little effect on job producing capital formation, largely because the actual physical investment is made by different entities for different reasons.

I might add that I am a long-time registered Republican and would profit substantially from Bush's tax policy, which I totally oppose. Additionally, I did not drink my way through Harvard Business School.

A. RICHARD GOODMAN

[NYS_Eric]

Right, you're just another average Joe Republican. I always get a kick out of letters where they feel obligated to say something like that, as if that will lend credibility to their position. Credibility that went down the toilet with his little drinking jab at the end. What a bitter little Deaniac.

[GVnana]

What a whack-job rant! Is this an editorial?

[NYS_Eric]

No, letter to the editor (sorry, probably should have labeled it better).

[MNnice]

Isn't this the same Richard Goodman who is the husband of the plagerizing "historian" Doris Kearns-Goodman? I know her husband's a lefty.

[MEG33]

http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-22-01.html
January 22, 2001

Clinton's Social Security Chief Backs Private Retirement Accounts
by Andrew G. Biggs

Andrew G. Biggs is a Social Security analyst with the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization.

[verity]

A. RICHARD GOODMAN

I can guess what the A. stands for ;0

[ops33]

Just ask yourself this question; without reform, what are the odds that the average social security receipient will get back what they put into the system in payroll taxes?
When I retire I would gladly forgo all future payments if they would just give me back the amount, with no interest, of payroll taxes I have paid during my lifetime.

[javachip]

Social Security is the most dishonest, economically unsound, diversionary fraud ever devised

There, now Goodman's first sentence is accurate.

[javachip]

Social Security is the most dishonest, economically unsound, diversionary fraud ever devised

There, now Goodman's first sentence is accurate.

[virgil]

I admit that I have questions about Bush's soc. sec. plan, but I don't know what it has to do with Iraq. Social sec is supposed to be there when you retire as a supplement to your retirment savings and pensions. The good thing about it is that it doesn't run out like your 401k money can. It keeps coming every month. Its supposed to be a safety net. Now, with pensions going the way of the dinosaur and 401ks subject to market fluctuatations, what will happen to people? Your soc. sec. would then be subject to market fluctuations. Are people going to have enough money? What happens to people who have already put a lot of money into social security, but still have another 20 years before retirement? I just want my damn money back.

I know people who had 401ks and good pensions and they retired a few years ago. Now with the stocks not doing so good, they've been falling on hard times when they thought they would be alright. That's despite the education efforts by the employer to help employees prepare for retirement.

[javachip]

The good thing about it is that it doesn't run out like your 401k money can

As SS is today, it may not run completely out of money, but your return is not at all guaranteed. When the so-called 'trust fund' has been repaid by the Treasury (if it's repaid), SS payments will be limited to SS revenues. From the FAQ section at the SSA website, that is projected to happen in 2042. At that point, payments to retirees would be cut by 27% with further cuts likely as the worker-to-retiree ratio shrinks.

Yes, there is some risk in the markets. But for many, Social Security is a guaranteed loser.