Don't Gamble Social Security on Private Accounts, Conyers Says

Washington, DC - Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) today announced his opposition to President Bush's calls for the privatization of social security, calling it the "triumph of greed and ideology over good sense and American values." He issued the following statement in coordination with a series of social security town hall meetings this week:

"At a time of economic hopelessness, Americans rallied around the principle that one generation of Americans could and should take care of another. Today, social security has become the success story of federal programs - a stable, efficient and successful program on which 46 million Americans rely each year. But, in spite of the vast accomplishments of social security, the president has called for sweeping reforms that would allow greed and ideology to triumph over good sense and American values.

Despite what many on the other side of the aisle are saying, there is no problem facing social security today that warrants a rash overhaul of the system. A Center for Economic and Policy Research study suggests that the program is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history. Even though the "baby boomers" will enter the system beginning in 2008, social security will be solvent well into the future, remaining financially sound until 2052, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the president's private accounts would require trillions of dollars in national debt in set-up costs alone, possibly reducing the program's solvency by as much as 50 percent.

With administrative costs of only 0.6 percent of total costs, a House committee recently called social security the most efficient government program. Bush's private accounts, however, could have administrative costs as high as 20 percent, creating a completely new bureaucracy.

Admittedly, President Bush's proposal would add one grand element to social security that Americans can't get in the current system: risk. While benefits under the current system are guaranteed, benefits could be reduced by as much as 50 percent in the coming decades for those who decide not to set up risky private accounts. For those who set up private accounts, retirement funds are dependent wholly on the ups and downs of Wall Street. There's only one group of Americans that would surely benefit from such a plan - the financial industry, one of President Bush's biggest donors.

If President Bush had his way, he would replace a proven, reliable and efficient social security system with a costly, risky, untested and heavily bureaucratic program. We as a nation owe it to one other not to gamble the financial security of generations on a policy designed around risk.

###109-2-28-05###