Democrats Suddenly Want To Privatize Social Security

Democrats want to end the tax breaks you and I receive by contributing to privately-invested retirement accounts and use those proceeds to create a new government-run retirement entitlement that we’d all be required to contribute to:

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

If you’re thinking that sounds like Social Security, you’re right. In fact, what Democrats are proposing here is ending tax breaks for private retirement investments in order to fund the sort of semi-privatized Social Security accounts the Bush administration tried to get passed in 2005:

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal. . . .
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

So we get private Social Security accounts, but only at the expense of more spending on Social Security in general and an end to tax breaks for private retirement investment.
The end result would be fewer people saving for their own retirements and more government dependence. Which is exactly what liberals want, right? Less people taking care of themselves, and more people dependent on the government.

Tags: ,


«
»
  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

    And great, we’d get government bureaucrats submitting shareholder proposals on proxy statements. The same guys running Amtrak would be running Microsoft.

    Yikes.

  • Osama Obama

    “the sort of semi-privatized Social Security accounts the Bush administration tried to get passed in 2005″

    I think you are wrong, Rob.

    “The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. ”

    They’re “investing” this in promisary notes from the Treasury. Who pays the intersest and maturity on those? Uh huh. This is a new tax on 401k investments. The money will be spent now, just like with our current Social Security system. The only difference appears to be the rate of return.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Privatizing social security will result in the same situation we have with the Wall Street fiasco.

    What “Wall Street fiasco”? What are you talking about?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview.

    What subsidy?

    The party of the “intellectuals” are redefining the language. In this case, someone keeping their own money has been redefined to mean a “subsidy”.

    Democrats redefine the language because they can not honestly sell their ideas. They have to trick people.

    “I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

    One: it is not “our” money.
    Two: it is certainly not your money to spend better.
    Three: we heard the “everbody would now be covered” lie before.

    She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.

    Of course they are! They are Democrats who believe that because they are in Washington, they are endowed with some kind of special knowledge that the rest of the population lacks. They even have the nerve to call themselves “reality based” and “intellectual” as they engage in this hubris.

  • ollie-B

    We should get rid of social security altogether. Or at least make it an option. Privatizing social security will result in the same situation we have with the Wall Street fiasco.

  • jj244

    The government has declared war on grandma , grandpa and the disabled. Legal insider trading will occur by our government if social security is privatized. Wall street will be licking their chops to get hands on grandma,grandpa annuity they have been paying on for many years. America will be destroyed by the politicians if we allowed this to happen. Social Security is not broke just broken into by the politicians.

  • jj244

    A class action law suit by 58 million people on social security. Sue for 58 billion (bail out money) a drop in the bucket for congress and senate they will make it back by their legally exempt insider trading on Wall Street. Oh ya did I say insider trading that's why they want to privatize social security. Wall Street is licking their chops just thinking about it

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development