RE: Social Security Works

[Javier Jimenez <jimenj@yahoo.com>]

>>>>>> Representative Jerrold Nadler wrote:
It is clear that some members of this discussion believe that Social
Security does not work and it should be abandoned.  Several
questioners have expressed the desire to opt out of the Social
Security system entirely.
<<<<<<

It is clear that when a system needs constant revision and increases
in taxes and continues to threaten the livelihood of future
generations, the system cannot be patched any longer.  It requires
that a new solution be implemented so that future generations can
benefit from concepts we know are better than previous ones.  One
of them, in my opinion, is CHOICE.  Haven't we learned that choice
is good; that when people are allowed to choose, they overwelmingly
choose the options that are going to improve their lives and those
of the people they most care about.

>>>>>> Representative Jerrold Nadler wrote:
I feel it is appropriate to share a few critical facts to balance
this discussion.

More than 148 million workers are protected by Social Security,
and more than 44 million people receive retirement, survivors and
disability benefits from Social Security.

More than 9-in-10 older Americans get Social Security retirement
benefit payments each month. Without Social Security nearly half
of American senior citizens would live in poverty.  Social Security
relieves families of the financial burden of supporting other family
members by providing a valuable package of retirement, disability,
and survivors insurance.

For the average wage earner with a family, Social Security survivor
benefits are equivalent to a $300,000 life insurance policy and a
$200,000 disability insurance policy.  So every worker benefits
from Social Security today, whether or not they are receiving a
cash benefit.
<<<<<<

Why would anybody pay as much for insurance premiums as the insurance
would cover?

>>>>>> Representative Jerrold Nadler wrote:
If we abandoned the system now, as some are suggesting, we will
force millions of people into poverty overnight.  If we allow
individuals to opt out of the program or refuse to pay into the
system, millions of people will suffer right away.  That would be
irresponsible and reckless, and I can't imagine anyone supporting
such a position.
<<<<<<

I will tone this down from a previous unposted comment. [snip,
snip]  I haven't heard anyone asking to "abandon" anything.  What
privatizers want is a reform that will empower workers with the
ability to determine what best fits them for retirement.  The plans
we propose include transition periods where current beneficiaries
and those that so CHOOSE will continue coverage under the existing
system.  Why does Mr. Nadler choose his choice of words?  This kind
of comments will get us nowhere because the very leaders we look
for leadership choose to misrepresent the views of their opponents.

>>>>>> Representative Jerrold Nadler wrote:
The truth is Social Security works today, and it will work in the
future.
<<<<<<

The truth is that Social Security has accumulated and will continue
to accumulate unfunded liabilities that are well in excess of our
colossal national debt.  These unfunded liabilities are estimated
now at between $4T and $10T.  Compounded by high payroll taxes,
low, near negative, returns for current workers, certain negative
returns for young workers, a future with lower benefits, higher
taxes, and higher retirement age, Social Security's state is hardly
that of a successful program.

>>>>>> Representative Jerrold Nadler wrote:
I would be happy to debate the merits of any investment option,
but I would just point out that under this bill a small portion of
the Trust Fund is invested in broad index funds independently
managed by professional investment managers under the supervision
of a non-political, independent board.  This is the lowest cost,
most efficient, and most prudent way of increasing the rate of
return on Social Security assets and is supported in principle by
the current Administration.
<<<<<<

I would be very happy if your debate included the realities of all
the other options.

>>>>>> Representative Jerrold Nadler wrote:
This proposal deserves more careful scrutiny in light of the negative
effects of many of the alternative approaches.  Remember, under
this proposal there is no cut in benefits, no increase in the
retirement age, no individual risk for beneficiaries, and no tax
rate increase.  It will also enable the government to meet its
future payment obligations without massive cuts in other needed
federal spending or increasing the publicly held debt.
<<<<<<

Under a privatized system, like in many other private pension
systems here in the United States, workers will enjoy greater
benefits, greater flexibility, greater freedom, and greater security.
All of these, without dependence on the government, politicians,
or future taxpayers.  Look around, we have many examples in the
United States alone, as well as contries around the world that have
had the vision to move away from government run pay-as-you-go
unfunded systems.

Thank you.