The Social Security Fund Problem

Thinking in a box gets us nowhere. Its like the often proposed "fixing" of the Social Security problem. Back in the 1970s a committee was formed to solve the problem of the Fund running out of money. They met and discussed and talked and debated the issue. And, finally, they came up with the brilliant idea that to solve the problem, they would "increase the base and raise the rate". (Increase the amount taxed and increase the rate of the tax charged.) It would last until at least 2020, they claimed.

Lo and behold, five years later, it was discovered that the figures were wrong, and it would not survive like that. So, a committee was formed again--our own Senator Church was a part of both committees, I think--and they debated, discussed and dissected the problem again. They came up with a brilliant plan: Increase the base and increase the rate! Wow! What brilliancy!

Now, they are again planning, in the best solution to have been brought forward, to....yeah, you guessed it...raise the base and raise the rate.

The idea of personalization of part of the funds is a no-no. Those funds are wanted in the Treasury for liberal exploitation, in my opinion. That has been the liberal idea for all these years. Otherwise, why is it that so many benefit programs have been funded out of the Social Security Fund over the years, for which it was not meant to be?

I recall a very short article in the Colorado Springs newspaper about forty or so years ago. It made the claim that had the Social Security funds been invested in blue chip stocks, it would have (at that time) owned the companies.

Privatizing means personalizing a part of the funds. What is wrong with that? Its not the socialistic thing to do--is that it? It can't be taken away and given to those who did not earn it? That brings the "soak the rich and bless the poor" down to a low level--for personalization would apply, properly, to every one who earns a wage. Now, thke 7.65% withheld from every paycheck is matched with the same amount by the employer, or the same person, if self-employed, and it all goes into the Federal treasury.

At least the lower level wage earners would have something that is their own. Maybe it would result in a sense of self-worth that would lift their vision to greater possibilities. What do you think?

Gene Lawley