insomnomaniac

Lying liars

That's what the people are who vociferously oppose private accounts as part of the Social Security Reform package. They are LIARS because they claim that:
- Private accounts will reduce benefits for retirees who are already retired or plan to in the next 10 years. Considering the people who will first be eligible for this part of the program are currently in their 20s and 30s, this is a LIE.

- Private accounts will fatten the pockets of investment management companies. Considering that the government will cap fees that such companies can charge for the management of these accounts, and considering that participants will have the option to participate and the option to choose the type of investment vehicles--some of which will be low cost or no cost, this is a LIE.

- Private accounts will leave some retirees with nothing if the stock market "tanks." Considering that even in its WORST year ever (since SS was created), the stock market still did better than the government in terms of return on the contributor's money, this is a LIE. Also, considering the fact that at 2% of the total contribution, the retiree is still going to collect something from the government, stock market tanking or not, this is a LIE.

- Private accounts will only make rich people richer and poor people poorer. Considering that the private accounts will belong to the retiree in total, rather than to the government, poor people will actually end up with more property if (no, WHEN) they die before getting all of their contribution back than if they solely relied on the government's check, this is a LIE. Also, considering that there will be means testing and cost-of-living increases will occur at a faster rate for those who need them more, this is a LIE.

So my question is this: Who the hell are these liars? Oh sure, I know some of them are in the leadership of AARP (which is downright bizarre because they are supposed to represent retirees and near retirees, not people my age. Their current membership will continue to get their full benefits, and their future membership will have the option to do so as well. Private accounts are OPTIONAL!), but who are the others? Who stands to gain from this opposition? Is it just that Democrats didn't think of it? Is it that cynical, that selfish? Or is there some angle I'm missing here? Who will LOSE if individual taxpayers get to KEEP and manage some of their own nest egg?

I'm at a loss as to understand how anyone in their right mind would oppose this. It not only solves 70% of the shortfall problem, it's just plain GOOD for people, especially low-income taxpayers (and I sincerely doubt that Bill Gates and Co. are pissed that some of their check will go away if this passes, so I doubt it's the rich people who oppose it).

Can someone please explain this to me? And can someone also explain why more Americans aren't furious with the Democrats for obstructing their chance to get to KEEP some of their retirement money for their heirs, even if they die long before they are able to get it back from the government that TOOK it from them in the first place?

Posted by insomnomaniac at May 1, 2005 10:13 PM | TrackBack