More

GOP Candidates Revive Idea Of Privatizing Social Security

Gop Candidates Social Security

First Posted: 09/17/11 06:23 PM ET Updated: 11/17/11 05:12 AM ET

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Most of the top Republicans running for president are embracing plans to partially privatize Social Security, reviving a contentious issue that fizzled under President George W. Bush after Democrats relentlessly attacked it.

As President Barack Obama sidesteps ways to keep the retirement system viable, his would-be rivals are keen on letting younger workers divert part of their payroll taxes into some type of personal account to be invested separately from Social Security.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a version. Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas have said younger workers should be allowed to invest in alternative plans. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has raised the idea of letting whole groups, such as state and local government workers, opt out of Social Security.

These proposals are popular among conservatives who believe workers could get a better return from investing in publicly traded securities. But most in the Republican race have been careful to say they would fight to preserve traditional Social Security for current retirees and those approaching retirement. Younger workers, they say, should have more options.

Romney says the stock market collapse in 2008 shouldn't scare workers away from investing in private accounts, but acknowledges it's an issue.

"Given the volatility of investment values that we have just experienced, I would prefer that individual accounts were added to Social Security, not diverted from it, and that they were voluntary," Romney wrote in his book, "No Apology."

Any kind privatization, however, is sacrilegious for liberals and many moderates. They say it would drain resources from the more than 50 million people who now receive benefits. Social Security experts say raising the privatization issue could give Democrats a potent political weapon.

"Any Republican who pushes personal accounts too hard will ensure Obama's re-election," said Kent Smetters, a business and public policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school. "That's bad news for the Social Security system because President Obama refuses to take a leadership position in dealing with the nation's entitlement overspending."

In 2005, Bush made a push to give workers the option to privately invest a portion of their payroll taxes to provide a supplement to government benefits. Republican lawmakers were reluctant to jump aboard as Democrats argued that Bush was trying to "end Social Security as we know it."

"We'll fight that fight anytime," said Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees Social Security. "Bad policy is usually terrible politics, and that's terrible politics."

Perry has helped make Social Security a leading issue in the campaign by writing in his book, "Fed Up!" that the program is a "Ponzi scheme" and a "failure."

Perry boasts that his provocative language is forcing the candidates to talk about an important issue. "Other candidates in this race were content on continuing to sweep it under the rug and continuing the status quo," Perry spokesman Mark Miner said.

Obama mostly has avoided the issue in the first three years of his presidency, arguing that Social Security has not been a major contributor to the nation's fiscal problems. As a candidate in 2008, Obama proposed increasing payroll taxes on high-income workers to help shore up the system, but he hasn't pushed the idea since taking office.

All the top Republican candidates have denounced tax increases.

Despite Perry's rhetoric, he hasn't released a comprehensive plan to address Social Security's financial problems. Perry says personal accounts "ought to be on the table," along with raising the retirement age.

Perry says state and local governments should be able to opt out of Social Security and enroll workers in alternative retirement plans. As an example, Perry talks about a plan in Galveston, Texas, that allows county employees to invest a portion of their income in annuities and bonds.

Nationwide, about 4 percent of workers, mostly state and local government employees, are in alternative retirement plans.

Bachmann made the case for personal accounts in a television interview last year, saying young workers "need to have some options in their life, so that going forward they can have ownership of their own Social Security, their own retirement, something that they can pass on to the beneficiary of their choice."

Paul drew applause during last week's GOP presidential debate when he said, "What I would like to do is to allow all the young people to get out of Social Security and go on their own! Now the big question is, how would the funding occur?"

Social Security is facing long-term financial problems largely because aging baby boomers are starting to retire, leaving fewer workers to pay into a system that is supporting a growing number of retirees. In 1950, more than 16 workers paid into Social Security for every person who received benefits. Today, the ratio is down to three workers paying in for every beneficiary taking out.

Social Security already pays out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. The system has built up a $2.6 trillion surplus, which was invested in Treasury bonds. But that surplus is projected to run out in 2036, unless Congress acts. At that point, Social Security will collect only enough payroll taxes to pay about three-fourths of benefits, according to the trustees who oversee the program.

Experts say allowing people to opt out of Social Security, or to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts, would drain even more resources from the system, at least in the short term.

"If you're looking at narrow self-interest, then there is an argument that can be made for being out of it," said Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. "But it's a national program. The reason that unfunded liability is there is that all our grandparents got benefits in excess of what they put in, and so everybody should be in and contributing to pay that off."

Related Video:
FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Most of the top Republicans running for president are embracing plans to partially privatize Social Security, reviving a contentious issue that...
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Most of the top Republicans running for president are embracing plans to partially privatize Social Security, reviving a contentious issue that...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7,231
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (168 total)
  1 of 16  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
noaxe397 12:57 AM on 09/18/2011
The issue is not that privatizing SS is sacreligious to liberals. It is that privatizing SS won't fix a single problem. That is why the idea failed in 2005 when Bush tried it. The fact that Bush was unable to explain HOW privatizing SS would save it made rejection of the idea simple and easy. And THAT is the problem today, also. No one can explain how privatizing solves the problem. The only thing a  Read More...
03:38 AM on 10/11/2011
Social Security... the bottom line.

Republicans are intentionally confusing the issue by scaring the general public.

Republicans want to privatize Social Security by handing over YOUR retirement safety net that amounts to billions and billions of dollars to Wall Street.

The REAL question is... how did that work out for us the last time we handed Wall Street oodles of dough?

Social Security is NOT bankrupt.

So, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Rush, and Fox Noise, shut up and...

Put American back to work please. A+B=C
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
p47nandmosquito
11:49 AM on 09/24/2011
Simple points to be made here. First, the majority of most people's retirement savings are already on the stock market, and took a nasty hit in the disaster that Perry glosses over. Social Security is actually the one thing that never is, the thing that they can count on even when the stock market plunges. In the market, what I'm talking about is called, "diversifying your investments," and is considered very important. Given that, the kinds of people who would take up this offer are the ones who are most likely to end up losing it all, and the ones who would need it most. Plus, if you're saying it's in addition, that just means costs go higher, which kind of goes against everything Republicans claim they're trying to do here.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jho austin
10:56 PM on 09/20/2011
Bagger support mysteriously missing here. Finally a position that will guarantee a loss for the republicans. Keep on, Perry. More insults to working Americans, please.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AntiClast
If it ain't broke, don't break it!
03:14 PM on 09/20/2011
I feel sorry for Wall Street. They haven't ripped off enough of our money. There's that big Social Security Fund sitting there. Hear them drool.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
06:07 PM on 09/19/2011
That's right Goopies, keep attacking Social Security. It's a winning issue, really. Nobody is terrified that conservatives are going to destroy the only thing keeping most people with a roof over their heads.
04:26 PM on 09/19/2011
IRA's, Roth's, SEP's etc are for people to invest in for supplementing their SS. As it sets with these privatization proposals the GOP/TP are simply adding another one of those programs.
Besides, it's simply a good idea to have SS because the other plans are open to loosing value when you're withdrawing from them during an economic meltdown-like what happened recently.
That alone should protect SS from privatization, and that every effort should be made to keep SS as it is now.
Government should just encourage people to invest in those other retirement plans and leave the SS alone.
photo
KenGirard
"American" is my religion. I have faith in it.
04:20 PM on 09/19/2011
So if the SS money was invested in the stock market, what woul happen? Trillions of dollars invested overnight.
Would we have to have a rule that says the Fed can't control more then 49.9% of a company?
When the Fed is on the Board of every Fourtune 500 company, would that count as nationalization?
photo
amaboss52
I think, therefore I am, I think?
04:12 PM on 09/19/2011
Same old recycled, rehashed bad policies being wrapped up with a shiny new bow by the repuds. Anyone who believes that the repuds have the best intentions for YOUR money is sadly mistaken. Let Wall Street gamble away your retirement savings? You've got to be kidding.
02:13 PM on 09/19/2011
Thank You, you are correct. I just didn't want anyone to misinterpret and stumbled myself. My Bad.
photo
grayplace
Life's a dream within a dream.
02:03 PM on 09/19/2011
The Coporate Masters have been after the SS funds for decades. That's the only reason the GOP/TP want to privatize SS.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
06:09 PM on 09/19/2011
Yep. Bush's attempt was going to make over $1 Trillion just vanish overnight... "administrative costs". The Conservative Culture of Corruption is literally salivating at the prospect of stealing all that money in Social Security.
photo
Littlewords
My micro bio was outsourced to my nano-bio: I'm me
01:43 PM on 09/19/2011
A truly bad idea from W and an even worse idea from his du mber protege and candidate clown contemporaries vying for the Republican POTUS ticket.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
06:10 PM on 09/19/2011
The funny thing is, George Dubai couldn't even push this through his Rubber Stamp Congress because it's so toxic. But hey, I'm glad the Goopers think it's totally not political suicide.
01:39 PM on 09/19/2011
"Privatizing social security" has long been the right wings hottest, sexiest little dirty fantasy.

Imagine!

Every working American....EVERY ONE....kicking in from every paycheck....directly to the boys on wall street....FOREVER.

No middleman...no need to sell them a mutual fund, an IRA or a house thaey can't afford.

Just think of the jazzy finacial and insurance "products" one could concoct to borrrow against such a revenue stream and then steal THAT money huh?

Make the housing bubble look like loose change and pocket lint.

tm
photo
MNKen
Eschew Obfuscation
02:59 PM on 09/19/2011
Excellent comment. Scary but true.
FnF
03:41 PM on 09/19/2011
The only good thing about the "crash of '08" is that it was (is) so big & so painful that our absent-minded electorate might remember it long enough so that the suggestion

"Hey...let's turn Social Security over to the same guys that did THIS..Whattaya say?"

will be greeted only with "Bronx cheers" and derisive laughter......for awhile anyway

Thanks for your response
tm
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Judy Rauch
01:37 PM on 09/19/2011
We all know and its no big shock that the GOP even their branch called tee pees hate Social Security and one wonders why maybe its because they see people that need it getting it and they can not give it to their rich owners. It seems to be one oof the last thing that middle class and the poor have and its killing them. This has nothing at all to do with the debt it has to do with their hatred of old people guess their GOD is going to stop them from being old. I have no doubts at all they will not stop at ending SS but look out here comes the panels who say you have lived long enough. Paul Ryan really thinks I guess that hey I am rich nothing can make me need it and maybe he has a stash of loot in his bedroom cause thats the only way its a sure thing.
The Right is Wrong
Voting for the good guys since 1976!
12:50 PM on 09/19/2011
No one is stopping anyone from having a personal account. Just not part of SS.

This is the way to go.
photo
Former Icon
Card Carrying Union Member
12:34 PM on 09/19/2011
Here in CA a few years ago, Schwarzenhitler tried to get CalPERS and CalSTRS turned over to his business buddies. And he was as sneaky about it as Ricko is trying to be. It would have been a two-tier system with any new hires given a list of private-sector plans in which they could lose their money.

News flash: That was part of what brought der Ubergovenfuhrer down and some of the ammο that kept Meg Wιtless out of politics.