Social Security "Reform" Fraud

by Liberty and Power

Put not your trust in the state. See the details of the Bush"privatization" plan.

From the Washington Post:

"Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent."

And from the New York Times:

"The personal accounts would be administered by the government; private companies would manage the investment funds under contract with the government."

"When workers retired, most would be required to use at least part of their accounts to buy from the government lifetime annuities...." (All emphasis added.)

The key word here is government.

Oh, one more thing. This is Bush's opening position. It hasn't gone through the congressional compromise mill yet.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jonathan Dresner - 2/3/2005

And how is that not raising payroll taxes? I'm not saying it's a bad idea (though the cap should be the same as the benefits cap, or something like that), but it's certainly not consistent with "the rules".

Gary McGath - 2/3/2005

Note also: "A _limited_ assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds." In other words, funds meeting government criteria. This would provide a new opportunity to control funds by withholding eligibility for social security money.

Sheldon Richman - 2/3/2005

One idea that is on the table is raising or scrapping the income cap for the payroll tax. Great.

Jonathan Dresner - 2/3/2005

Who needs details? The speech itself included glaring contradictions: how you own the money, but it gets dribbled out to you in a government-set formula; how the money will come out of payroll taxes but that increasing payroll taxes is non-negotiable in the social security "reform" discussion; for that matter, how "all ideas are on the table" but private accounts are a separate proposal to be taken out of the context of other social security ideas.

Not that you're wrong, of course: quite the contrary. But why bother?