Social Security Ponzi Scheme

By DICK ARMEY
Commentary
Wednesday, Jul. 25, 2007

REFORMING retirement security in America is the greatest political opportunity -- and responsibility -- of our generation. Yet the topic of Social Security and Medicare is shockingly absent from Presidential hustings.

Simply ignoring the problem does not mean it is going away. Thomas Saving, a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare programs, estimates a breathtaking $83.6 trillion unfunded liability in the two entitlements, which is a tremendous gap between promised obligations and what the government will actually collect in payroll taxes.

Serious reforms of these broken government programs based on personal ownership have fallen victim to Republicans who don't dare and Democrats who don't care. Washington simply will not take the issue of retirement security seriously, until the American people force them to do so.

After all of the political demagoguery and tactical missteps of last year's failed debate, what do the American people actually think about their retirement security under Social Security and Medicare? New survey data released by McLaughlin and Associates found that nearly nine in 10 likely voters are concerned about "catastrophic problems with Social Security and Medicare in the future that could directly affect the quality of [their] retirement." These findings transcended party lines.

The core problem is not merely one of solvency. We could balance the books tomorrow by drastically slashing benefits and raising taxes. Paying more and getting less is considered a "bipartisan fix," but such painful solutions only temporarily solve the government's problem and do nothing to improve the retirement security of Americans. Such a fix will force younger workers to pay a double penalty of higher taxes during their working life, only to receive less of a benefit in retirement.

The McLaughlin survey makes it clear that voters want entitlement reform to be a major part of the national conversation during the 2008 presidential campaign. Ninety-six percent of voters said it is important that "a candidate for President in 2008 concentrates on the present and future problems with Social Security and Medicare by discussing and demonstrating a realistic plan to provide retirement security for current and future retirees."

Voters also want elected officials to take a broad look at the problem, with a strong super-majority of 84 percent of voters agreeing that a national retirement security program should include provisions for health care, as well as income.
Voters are not afraid of change, with seven in 10 approving of "changing our current retirement system so that their payroll taxes are placed in a secure account that they own and control and are allowed to grow until they retire when they can withdraw the funds as they need for income and health care expenses."It is time to give American workers the chance to create and fund protected retirement accounts that they can own, control and pass on to their children. The government would provide the structure and appropriate safeguards, but the individuals would have control over their own retirement destiny.

Outside of government, there is an ownership revolution, with bankrupt defined-benefit pension plans being replaced with individually owned defined-contribution retirement plans, which are portable, interest-earning and secure. Let us also be clear that leaving federally sponsored entitlement plans should be optional; individuals would simply be given the choice between federal or personal control.

This is where the voters of New Hampshire have a special responsibility. If primary voters demand action on entitlements, politicians will respond. On June 6, when asked by activists from Students for Saving Social Security whether he would support giving people more control over their retirement accounts, Mayor Rudy Giuliani responded, "I'm going to tell you my overall philosophy that applies to Social Security, health care, jobs, school choice: It's your money. You should have as much control over it as I can give you. You can do a better job with your money than the mess in Washington. When we give you more control over Social Security, we move forward."

Sen. John McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney have made similar public statements in support of personal accounts, but the issue is unfortunately not mentioned on the issue pages of their respective campaign Web sites. Social Security is also conspicuously absent from the issue pages of the leading Democratic candidates.

I believe that pocketbook voters in New Hampshire -- Democrats, Republicans and independents -- are looking for a political entrepreneur willing to break convention by offering a serious, adult policy solution to the federal government's failing retirement programs. If voters build the political stage for real change, will the next President have the wisdom to step up?

Dick Armey, U.S. House majority leader from 1995 to 2002, is chairman of FreedomWorks Foundation.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Social
• Security
• Democrats
• Ponzi
• Scheme

[poindexterwitkowsky]

Stand up 4 your RIGHTS Americans.~ The REPUBLICANS have been FOOLING YOU for the last 30 yrs. SOCIAL SECURITY*, (SS) , is NOT an entitlement! SS HAS A $2.6 TRILLION SURPLUS SS CAN pay every claim at least until 2030.~ SS DOES NOT increase the federal budget by one cent! Tell the REPUBLICAN GANGSTERS & THEIR WALLSTREET BANDIT FRIENDS that you will FIGHT any PRIVATIZATION OF your SS pension.~You will FIGHT ANY REDUCTION IN BENEFITS. YOU will FIGHT any change in AGE REQUIREMENT FOR SS BENEFITS!

[tickyul]

@Marksnotebook Good one! The SS trust fund invests in.....................NOTHING­. Why? Because there is nothing in the SS trust fund bunk worthless paper............thanks a lot ALGORE.

[TheLastOfTheFinest80]

Was reaganomics a ponzi scheme also?

[TheMango121]

@poindexterwitkowsky

MFW you are completely wrong. SS is WORSE than a ponzi scheme... atleast you aren't FORCED into a ponzi scheme.

[ComicPenius]

At least you can opt out of a Ponzi scheme.  SS is a fraud. Even the name is deceptive - it's designed to suck in well-meaning idiots.

[Marksnotebook]

SS is the biggest bunch of bullshit that ever got started...It totally allows the gov to control you. Go to Galveston county Texas, where they opted OUT of SS from the government in the early 80s and now they are thriving with retirees making much more on their investments than SS produced for them. And for those who say the stock market is bad for SS, then allow a person to invest in CDs...ha ha.....libs...you lose!

[joetheeconomist]

Social Security isn't a ponzi scheme - it is a poorly run insurance company. It runs the risk of becoming a disaster given the ideas that are put forward in Washington. We outline a solution which doesn't make it a good deal, but at least it will fix the ponzi myth. FixSSNow.Org.

[tickyul]

@MaskedMumblr Well, President Johnson signed that change into law. Now we have a SS trust fund with basically ZERO fungible assets. I mean what do you expect, the creeps saw money they could grab....of course they took it. The SS trust fund could have had trillions in real assets such as gold, sliver, platinum, dollars, yen, Blue chip stocks, very secure real estate investment.....hehehe, that did not happen because this country is retarded and insane.

[tickyul]

@shellius Call it what you want, there are no fungible assets in Al Gore's lockbox. So we will eventually have to either make changes to the SS system or start printing Kaboodles of money....or maybe both.

[tickyul]

@poindexterwitkowsky Surplus my butt. The fact is the lockbox has Non fungible T-bills that cannot be sold like regular T-bills.

So where do we find the money if there is a shortfall in SS money in vs money out? Well of course we print more debt. National debt ............20 trillion by 2016.....Ameritards......fuck yeah!!!!!!