More Mental Gymnastics With Social Security
Talk about an ideological blind spot. From the Los Angeles Times comes a plan from a legacy employee of a legacy institution:
Joel Havemann - May 30th, 2005 Like many other retirees, Bob Ball is concerned about what's going to happen to Social Security.
...
He shot up through the bureaucracy to become commissioner of Social Security for three presidents. On his watch, Social Security became the biggest and most popular benefits program. And in 1983, when he had been collecting retirement benefits for four years, he was a key negotiator of the law that rescued Social Security from the brink of insolvency.
...
"FDR talked about a basic retirement income that would guarantee a certain replacement rate for everybody to build on," Ball said. But the individual investment accounts proposed by Bush, which would allow younger workers to use some of their payroll taxes to ride the ups and downs of the stock and bond markets, would undermine that guarantee, he said.
Emphasis added. Contrast it with this, later in the article:
Joel Havemann - May 30th, 2005 His most controversial proposal: let the government invest some of the Social Security trust fund's surplus in stock index funds. Although this would allow the government to profit from expected — but not assured — market gains, critics have warned that it could also open the door to government meddling in corporate affairs, despite safeguards that Ball has proposed.
Aha! Now it all makes sense. It's risky to let people invest their own money in the market, but letting the government do so is another matter. Granted, we're talking about a surplus in this case, though in case you haven't noticed, the system's not exactly going to be rolling in cash over the next few decades.
Regardless, the attitude underneath seems to me that such things must always fall on some official body. This is likely why those who generally oppose personal retirement accounts also often have, for example, an undying faith in the value of institutions like the United Nations; they're addicted to process, to procedure, to official proclamations and oversight. Perhaps it makes them feel safe. Certainly much safer than the idea that individuals are running around, doing whatever they want with their own money and property and time.
It's an understandable fear, but one that we (and by we, I mean everyone) should not be taken in by. The processes and procedures of government are necessary, but it is important to resist the illusory feeling of safety that official, sanctioned decisions give us.
» June 2nd, 2005
|
|
Calendar
More Entries
Blogroll
Instapundit
Andrew Sullivan
Tom Maguire
Decision '08
Patrick O'Keefe
Categories
Blogging
Democrats
Economy
Elections '04
Elections '06
Elections '08
Entertainment
George W. Bush
Iraq
Media
Miscellaneous
Republicans
Social Security
Supreme Court
Technology
War on Terror
Email Me
|