
|
April
22, 2005
Of
Trust Funds and Lockboxes; Social Security’s Dirty Little Secret By
This was not the
intended purpose of Social Security. But
it was the scheme put in place to deal with the surplus.
How can government just leave money sitting around, right? In the 1990s it was
fashionable to talk about a “Social Security Lockbox.”
I supported this idea which would have walled off the surplus to be
used only for Social Security benefits or to fund reform of Social
Security and Medicare. Many in Today, there is no
lockbox. Once you retire, the
monthly retirement income you receive under Social Security is calculated
using a formula roughly based on your earnings and the amount you paid
into the system. By 2041,
the jig is up on this scheme and, at the current rate of spending and
retirement age, Social Security runs out of money – lockbox or not.
It’s not that Treasury Bonds are unreliable, there simply are not
enough workers entering the workforce to support those leaving it.
If we don’t do something, adequate Social Security
benefits will not be there for the next generation.
It is simply immoral to ask younger workers to pay into a system
that is not going to be around when they need it.
I feel the best way to
address this problem is through allowing workers the opportunity to
voluntarily save some of their own money in their own account for their
own retirement. This is the
only lockbox that will prevent For example, a worker
born in 1970 who lives in However, if this same
worker put his monthly Social Security tax into a personal account,
allocating most (65 percent) to bonds and the rest to stocks, his total
retirement benefits would be $939,407.
When he passes away, depending on how he chooses to set the
accounts up, this nest egg legally belongs to his family and the
government cannot take it away. With personal accounts
everyone wins. Workers have a
nest egg they own, can pass on, and receive more retirement money.
The government does not have to go into more debt, does not have to
manage complex calculations of benefit payments, and would only have to
oversee the accounts. I believe you should be
in control of your retirement. And
I believe you can be, if government would allow it.
This is your money we’re talking about here.
You sacrificed for it. You
earned it. And if you decide
you can get a better rate-of return than under the current system, then
they should have the right to do it.
Government should not stand in the way. Now, I’m not talking
about padding the wallets of stockbrokers. In fact, the accounts I support
would be managed by the Social Security Administration and controlled by
workers who voluntarily choose to save money in any one of several
different funds, or a mix of them. Federal
employees have used this model for years.
It’s called the Thrift Savings Plan and is essentially a
government-managed 401k program. However, if you are like
me, this idea is scary primarily partly because we are not sure how our
grandkids would handle the idea of saving their money.
While my grandkids are too young to really know how they handle
money, I share that fear with you. I
want them to control their own retirement, but I want to make sure they do
not gamble away their savings. On paper, personal
accounts give rates of return 4 and 5 times greater than the current
system. That’s why millions
of workers love their 401k plans and IRAs. They put the money you work to
earn, to work for you. That’s
why I want my grandkids to capitalize on the potential of these accounts. In reality, however, we
need to make sure that young workers do the right thing and make wise
choices. Regardless of what
comes out of this debate, we need to impart the values our kids need to
make the right choices with their money and plan for the future. We
need to save and strengthen Social Security. #
# # |