Designer Social Security

Designer Social Security,” by Dick Morris, New York Post, 29 March 2005, http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/43317.htm (from South Dakota Politics).

Social Security, Thune, and Schaff,” by Chad M. Schuldt, Clean Cut Kid, 23 April 2005, http://www.cleancutkid.com/2005/04/12/social-security-daschle-and-schaff/.

Our favorite Clean Cut Kid is worried that Bush’s plan is too risky

On the other hand, if we were to privatize Social Security as Bush and Thune would like, we would essentially dissolve the trust fund into tiny pieces, with risk concentrated in a segment of those who are part of the program. There would be some big winners, but there would be some big losers to be sure.

So, say what you will about investing a portion of the Social Security trust fund in the market … I’m not sold on the idea personally, but I do know risk for individual investors would be marginalized when compared to the scheme Bush and Thune want to see implemented. That’s why Professor Schaff’s retirement plan is set up in this very way … to minimize risk!

Well, no one is proposing privitizing social security, but that dishonesty confusion aside, President Clinton’s former political consultant Dick Morris may have a plan

We are all adults. We get the point that the Social Security system can’t pay us the benefits now on the books with the revenues slated to flow in during the coming decades. We know that something has got to give. That’s why we are hesitant to buy into privatization in the first place until Bush explains how he will solve the basic problems of the system.

So offer us options. For example:

Option A — No increase in taxes. No change in the retirement age. A cut in benefits.

Option B — No increase in taxes. A later retirement age. The current level of benefits.

Option C — An increase in taxes. No change in retirement age. The current level of benefits. (For those who can document higher income levels, there could be a further option of an increase in the ceiling of taxation or a raise in the rate.)

Throw the Bush choices into the mix — private investments in exchange for an added tax hike, benefit cut or increased retirement age.

Now there’s a compromise. Old-age security for all, with both a public and private component. The Morris Compromise would combined defined-benefit benefits (the current system) with an optional defined-contribution angle.

Let’s do it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *