| OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2005 pound interest. Hindsight shows us what financial good could have been. It should also show us how we can improve in the future. Some political voices chime in a chorus that such investments would be risky. It's interesting that almost all nay-say-ers have an investment portfolio of some sort for themselves. The President is not trying to get money to Wall Street; he's trying to get it out of Washington and into our pockets. People are smart enough to make decisions. An improved retirement system should require that any and all investment options for personal accounts must be secure and easily understood. The government must spend more time explaining the choices to Americans and less time wasting America's cash. There are compelling reasons for personal accounts even if there was no funding crisis. Personal accounts mean the system is pre-funded and secure, not just a tax for the present that is immediately spent and can be politically manipulated. Personal accounts encourage savings. It is understandable that a relatively small percentage of those making less than $20,000 annually have any savings or investments. The government unmercifully taxes away what is not spent on necessity. In contrast, among those making over $100,000 annually, 25 percent of that group has some sort of personal savings. Personal savings accounts would balance that out, giving a savings program to all, regardless of personal income. Moreover, the saver is not at the mercy of power hungry politicians desiring control. Retirees with enhanced earnings could use this personal wealth to start a small business, enjoy a vacation, or help grandkids in college. Any number of options, including just holding onto the money, would be available. Contrast that with the present system which not only does not build a "nest egg" for the future, but actually discourages savings by absorbing large chunks of earnings in Social Security taxes. Most important, personal accounts are optional. No one would be forced to have a personal account. Anyone who wanted the old system could stay. I agree with former Senator Phil Gramm who suggested that retirees should make the choice at retirement to compare the two options. Senator Gramm is convinced that Einstein was not stupid. Compounded interest will make personal accounts a better retirement for those who choose it. Utah has a sound retirement system for state employees. Amidst all this debate, it should not be forgotten that there is nothing President Bush is proposing that has not been successfully administered in Utah's program and countless other state retirement systems. We must make Social Security actu-arially sound and give individuals ownership rights over their money. Let me just touch on one criticism of the amazingly naive. Some say that repealing the Bush tax cuts is the answer. But tax cuts don't impact the benefit cash flow caused by demographics. If one repealed every recent tax break of all Americans, it still wouldn't be enough to pay the future shortfall. It would be enough, though, to stifle the economy and compound the problem. Our goal is to get more workers and generate additional income, not fewer workers and less revenue. In a final bit of bad news, the Social Security rate of return is particularly appalling in the State of Utah. In terms of payments made versus benefits received, the First Congressional District in Utah ranked 356th of the 435 districts nationwide. That means that an average Utah couple, born in 1970, could expect only 69 percent of the Social Security taxes they paid to be returned as a Social Security benefit. That should be objectionable to all of us, and reason enough to try and reform and improve the system. Our children deserve a brighter financial future than that. For the Sake of Our Children, the Program Can and Should Be Fixed There are no "simple" or "easy" fixes for our kids' future. Social Security needs a systemic change. Those who say there is no problem do a disservice to America. There is a financial and demographic crisis facing our current Social Security system. For the sake of our kids, we must move to secure retirement now. Let us not forget that absolutely no portion of these proposed reforms and improvements will affect those currently retired or near retirement. For those 55 years and older, their retirement benefits from Social Security are secure and protected. This debate is about our kids and grandkids and whether or not they deserve the same promise. The obvious answer to that is an absolute "yes." I'm hopeful the President and Congress can sit down in a bipartisan manner and say "no" to benefit cuts and future tax increases and "yes" to protected benefits and opportunity for our children. My kids should be able to put money aside, allow it to grow over time, and receive a better retirement in the future. We are all in the same financial boat. It is not an "us versus them" issue. There need not be generation conflict. You can't sink half a boat without all going down. We need a system fair to all. I believe we can create it. 85 |
