President Bush may have opened a can of worms of sorts by so brazenly grasping the perceived third rail of American politics, but it is about time someone took the helm of the wayward ship called Social Security. The Democrats sounded the alarm bells in 1998, even giving President Clinton standing ovations when he voiced his support for private personal accounts.
But that was then and this is now. With President Bush proposing something along the same lines, and threatening to pry away the last finger of the liberal stranglehold over the hopes and dreams of our citizenry, the armies of dependence have staked out their territory and are not willing to cede it.
Listening to the Democrats talk, you would think they were living in a different country. Senators such as Harry Reid (Nev.) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.) run out to the microphones, soothsaying for the left, assuring us that Social Security is the most solvent entity of the government. They even gathered around FDR's statue last week, staging a rally for entitlement. Or maybe they were just feeling nostalgic for the last time they had any real power in Washington. Thankfully Americans haven't made that mistake twice!
Of course, far be it from any of the Democrats to offer viable alternatives. They whine and scream about whatever comes out of Bush's mouth, leaving only Bush and some congressmen actually trying to lead. It is not enough for them to win; the Republicans must also lose. Never mind that the real losers if the Democrats and the AARP bogeymen prevail will be the American workforce.
Not to bore you with facts and figures, but at Social Security's inception, there were 16 workers for every retiree. This, combined with a shorter life expectancy, made the program more manageable. However, today there are only about three workers per retiree. With so fewer workers, and therefore incomes, the government is going to be paying out more than it is taking in a few years from now.
Not to mention that Social Security is a horrible deal if there ever was one. I invite you to take a gander at your next paycheck. Just know that that 20 or 50 dollars that is bound for Washington will not be coming back to you in 30 years. No, it is going to end up in the wallet of Ethel or Herman down in West Palm Beach, paying for her hair appointment or his latest round of golf, cart included.
And the return on the investment - that's enough to make even Karl Marx lose sleep. A measly 1 percent is the best I can get for being forced to bequeath my hard-earned cash every month? Call me crazy, but I'd rather partner up with Charles Schwab than Charles Schumer any day. That's right my friend, I'll gladly forgo the mothering of my government and invest in the stock market for a good 4 to 5% annually.
A big hindrance to passing this reform is the transition costs. The government will be losing the money people put in Wall Street instead of U.S. coffers. However, not doing anything and letting the program continue to waste away could end up costing $10.4 trillion in the long run, according to government figures.
To be sure, the transition from benevolence to independence remains to be worked out, but Congress should not wilt in the face of these challenges. I agree that workers should be cautioned on wise investing and should be held to a ceiling for contributions in the opening phase of the plan. The president understands that not everyone is comfortable with personal accounts, and would allow those who are skittish to keep collecting in the traditional way. See, that is the beauty of reforming Social Security - Americans will now have the choice to structure their retirement savings as they wish.
I thought it was the liberals who always stake out the territory of choice, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Apparently they want us.
