« Invasion USA? | Main | Yet another ethical dilemma »

Democrats Absolutely Against Privatization

Social Security turns 70 years old today and Democrats are, apparently, determined to see the program go another 70 years (if it could even make it that long) without any meaningful reform.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On the eve of Social Security's 70th anniversary, Democrats said on Saturday they are ready to move toward revamping the financially troubled retirement program but warned against stripping away benefits to retirees and relying on private accounts for funding.

"We have a moral obligation to stand up and protect Social Security for the next 70 years and beyond -- that means stopping privatization and dropping partisan demands for private accounts," said Rep. John Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, in his response to President George W. Bush's radio address. . . .

"Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits, and Democrats will fight to make sure that Republicans do not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

"Democrats stand ready to address the challenges facing Social Security's solvency, but this cannot begin until Republicans begin talking about ways to make Social Security stronger, not weaker," she said.

You know what really amazes me? The fact that Democrats are trying to spin private accounts, which would not only substantially increase the dividends Americans see from the money they pay into Social Security but also lock that money away from greedy politicians who would use it to fund other government programs, into something that is "risky" for Americans to engage in.

What is so risky about it? At the turn of the last century some 52% of Americans owned stocks. Breaking it down a bit, 80% of white Americans and 65% of black Americans already invest their retirement funds in the stock market. If one were to remove children and indigent Americans from those totals so that they only reflected the average tax-paying, working citizen I'm sure the figures would be much higher.

Yet because Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat cohorts tell us that the investment of retirement funds in the stock market is too risky for Americans and their Social Security money we're supposed to believe them?

Give me a break. After all, what the President is calling for isn't all that different from the retirement plan Rep. Pelosi and other members of Congress have given themselves. Taking that same kind of system and giving it to Americans and their Social Security contributions is an idea Hillary Clinton seemed to support back in 1994.

Rep. Salazar referred to private accounts as a "partisan" demand, but what are we to think of Democrat opposition to allowing more control for citizens over money they pay into Social Security when said opposition doesn't seem to be based on the plans themselves but rather on who is suggesting them?

By Rob Port of Say Anything.

Comments (10)

>Ah, but what if t... (Below threshold)


Ah, but what if they change the "promise?"

I've seen the rules changed twice that I know of. When I was going to college, they paided "surviving children" benefits untill you were 18, or 21 if you went to college. My second year, they changed the rule to only pay while you were in school, no summers. A year after I graduated, they changed again, benefts untill you are 18. Sorry.

The future if SS? They will end up raising the retirement age again, and add means testing.

What infuriates me is not t... (Below threshold)

What infuriates me is not that Democrats are against privatizing SS. That is to be expected. It seems the Republicans don't really want it either. I get the impression that they have all but given up on the issue. SS reform without privatization is no reform at all.

"We have a moral obligation... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

"We have a moral obligation..tada...tada..."
Don't want to hear any democrats preach to me about moral obligations. I have already had my big laugh today. Saw Nancy Pelosi try to blink her eyes.

You might add that many tho... (Below threshold)

You might add that many thoudands of people, mostly government employees, don't pay Social Security taxes and are not in the system. They have their own system that invests (horror of horrors) in stocks.

Why are we barred by law from the same option?

A sad look at what could be... (Below threshold)

A sad look at what could become of our economy minus reform:


I'm putting as much as I ca... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I'm putting as much as I can into my 401k provided through my job. I do this by sacrificing things I want right now so I can contribute more into my retirement fund.

However, I think that in 40 years or less, SS will be so eff'ed up that the politicians will look around and say,
"Hey, look at how much Les has saved! He's got a pile of retirement money. He has more than 'enough'. He has more than his 'fair share'. Let's reduce or eliminate his SS benefits while continuing to pay people who didn't plan ahead." And so all that money that I paid in to SS for all that time will be wasted. Plus, since I will (hopefully) have a nice nest egg saved up, I think there will be a significant tax increase on us 'rich' retirees. This is going to happen to all of us who are being responsible with our retirement and savings.

I will not be suprised for events to unfold this way; in fact I mostly expect it. But, knowing myself, I will still be mightily pissed; possibly to the point of doing something 'unfortunate' in my geezer years. I'm not sure what else I can do.

You have all been warned.

This line made me laugh: <i... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

This line made me laugh: Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits

As if willing the problem away makes it go away and keeps SS solvent.

Partial privatization is the way to go.

The only options open to the dems are in reality to prove the SS was really just a welfare program all along, and what ticks me off is that when they add means testing, it will in reality punish those who bothered to save, and in the future discourage people from saving.

Hardly the type of system you want to set up.

What Les Nessman wrote. So... (Below threshold)

What Les Nessman wrote. So many of us cannot rely on much any in politics opines...when they opine, that is. And that's the pivotal problem, in that by the time politicians respond to any issue, it's long after possibilities to effectively change conditions are passed and they then speak as if they're making grave changes, usually by means of tweaking ethics torturously. Why NOT allow for private investing, and now? I wish I could recoup the many lost years of earnings before there were 401Ks, just for starters.

Yep Joe, ya got it right</p... (Below threshold)

Yep Joe, ya got it right

I'm a government employee. I don't pay into Soc Sec at all (only the medicare portion). I have a fully refundable retirement account (the $$ are in MY NAME, as asset I can take with me if I leave govenment employment or let sit until retirement age. If I die, my heirs get it).

Amazing how the Dems don't want the "little people" to have what they have, eh?

More from the party with no... (Below threshold)
OC Chuck:

More from the party with no good ideas:

"The American people are too stoopid to be able to manage their own money." Ok, you got any better ideas??? -crickets-

I hope to be in the same boat as Les (as far as being a 'rich' retiree). My company's retirement system will cut over from a funded pension to an annual payout into my 401k next year. Not too popular with the employees, but it removes a ton of future liability for the company - a move to put the company on a better financial footing, more viable company, I get to keep my job.

Any time something bad needs to be fixed, it involves pain. Its much cheaper to fix things early on than to wait until disaster strikes.







Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy