Privatization Of Social Security Just A Scam

my LTTE in The Day, Eastern CT newspaper
http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=651126EB-726D-42A4-88AE-7D3704638CC0

Donald Luskin accuses Paul Krugman of lying about Social Security privatization. (“Krugman's distortions on Social Security,” Dec. 23.) In reality, it's the Bush administration that consistently deceives the American people.

Remember that President George W. Bush's tax cuts were going to spur our economy to great heights? Those tax cuts have worked so well that we're facing the largest deficit in history, and because of that deficit, Mr. Bush has recently had to play the wicked Scrooge by slashing funds to charities that feed the global poor. Isn't this the same Mr. Bush who loathes North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il, because “he is starving his people?” Don't be surprised if many see Bush's Social Security privatization plan as another scam.

At the Social Security seminar during the 2003 American Association of University Women's convention in Providence, a spokeswoman from the Social Security Administration informed us that the current system can pay 100 percent of its obligations up to 2042. After that, it can pay 75 percent of its obligations. She also said that Social Security was the most efficient government program ever created. It only cost 1 percent of proceeds to pay for the current administration costs. Privatization, even by proponents, is expected to consume 30 to 40 percent of proceeds.

Social Security is a social insurance supplement program for retirement, disability and survivorship, not a retirement investment program. When my father unexpectedly died in 1964, he left my mother with three children younger than 18. Thank goodness for Social Security. It kept us out of poverty, and that is what Franklin Roosevelt intended.

Social Security privatization would endanger the most vulnerable, who depend upon Social Security, and that is why it's morally reprehensible.

Don't forget, I've also started my own blog "A Tiny Ripple of Hope" http://tinyrippleofhope.blogspot.com/ . My latest post is on my thoughts about "Should Howard Dean be DNC Chair?" I'm publishing it monthly right now.

Below is his latest lie:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200412271005.aspThe Lesson of Thrift
Personal accounts already work (which might be why the critics are so scared).

<snip>The critics never mention that there’s already a government-administered retirement system that has shown for over 15 years that personal accounts are prudent, inexpensive, and simple. It’s the Thrift Savings Plan of the United States federal government, currently serving 3.3 million government employees.
I DO LOVE PARTIAL TRUTH LIES - THE GOP AND OUR MEDIA NEVER RUN OUT OF THEM! "PRUDENT, INEXPENSIVE, AND SIMPLE" - MEANING WHAT ?- THAT FOLKS HAVE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS? - NOT A DAMN THING ABOUT ADEQUATE RETIREMENT INCOME OR COST RELATIVE TO SOCIAL SECURITY - OR INDEED THE EXTRA TAXES THAT MUST BE PAID UNDER BUSH TO JUST PAY THE INTEREST ON THE $2 TRILLION DOLLAR TRANSITION COST BORROWING>

SOMEHOW 1987 - THE START DATE - SKIPS THE DISASTER OF THE 70's and few monies were collected before the CRASH IN 87 -<snip>Over time and on average, 65 percent of the value of Thrift participant accounts has been invested in a special money-market account operated by the U.S. Treasury. That’s been responsible for about $20.3 billion of the total investment gains. But almost as much — $19.8 billion — came from an S&P 500 Index fund. That’s remarkable because, on average, only 30 percent of the value of participant accounts has been invested in the S&P 500 fund.

This is a textbook lesson in why it makes sense to invest in equities. Even though they are riskier in the short-term, they have a higher expected return in the long-term. That’s why the S&P 500 fund has earned just about as much for Thrift participants as the plan’s money-market account, with only half the money invested.MONITOR STORY ABOUT RESULT SINCE 1950 PROVES THIS TO BE A LIE - IT ALL DEPENDS ON START DATE - AND PAST IS NOT GURANTEE OF FUTURE!<snip>

And index funds are cheap to operate. As I discussed in detail in my column last week, investment management fees for index funds are ruinously small for the managers. And speaking of cheap, Thrift is a model of efficiency. Its administrative costs are only about six one-hundredths of 1 percent of invested assets. That compares especially favorably to Social Security, which has administrative costs that are more than five-times greater, even though you’d think its vast scale would lead to significant economies.HE FORGETS THAT SS PAYS MORE THAN RETIREMENT BENEFITS - OR THAT SS HAS MORE FOLKS AS A PERCENTAGE RECIEVING PAYOUTS (PROCESSING PAYOUTS IS EXPENSIVE)- THE GOP LOVE PARTIAL TRUTH! <snip>


— Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm. He welcomes your comments at don@trendmacro.com.

EVERYTHING the Bush - Cult of Death - administration does is a SHAM.

Try to name ONE thing that Bush has done that ISN'T a SHAM.........
Including being "elected."

How I wish this got as much attention as hot button social issues