Trust market over plundering politicos

Published 9:00 pm Saturday, October 28, 2006

The justification for retirement fund privatization can found in Social Security’s history.

In 1937 (Helvering vs. Davis) the Supreme Court ruled that Social Security revenues were part of the general fund, not earmarked for any program. And in 1960 (Fleming vs. Nestor) the court ruled that Social Security has no obligation to those who have paid into it. In short, there is no actual Social Security Trust Fund.

Privatization of retirement funding is such a big issue because politicians have found they can scare people with it. People are led to believe the “safety net” will fail them when, in fact, it is the politicians who cannot be trusted with our “safety net.” Our Social Security contributions become their money but private accounts would be ours; our property. Property rights are a fundamental of our American heritage.

Had its contributions been set aside and not frequently used as a slush fund by politicians for purposes not applicable to its mandate, Social Security would now be so well funded that privatization debates would be largely academic. This sacred cow will cease to give if retirement is allowed to be privatized.

Private accounts would provide an unpredictable, but historically profitable, rate of return while Social Security would continue to provide an unpredictable benefit because of the political depreciation caused by political plundering. Both would be subject to taxation based on political vagaries just as Social Security is now. Which stands to make for a more comfortable retirement?

Instead of teaching people to be afraid of retirement we, as a society, should teach people how to prepare for it, sans government “hand-holding” (or thievery). I believe the government should still mandate that we save for retirement (otherwise we won’t) but I would rather trust my retirement to the market than to political highwaymen.

Jim Mitchell

Darrington