Social Security is at risk with John Koster. So say many regarding the proposal to privatize it.
Let’s review: President Clinton requests a study on this. A bipartisan team led by Sen. Patrick Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) researches in detail and presents its findings. Clinton likes what he hears and pushes to move it forward.
The Monica Lowensky affair shifts the focus for the next two years, and SS goes to the back burner. President Bush takes office, sees their SS plan, and after briefing, pushes to move it forward. Now pure politics takes over. The very people who favored it now oppose it as “Bush’s plan.”
As proposed, the 6.2 percent payroll deduction would split, with 4.2 percent going to SS and 2 percent invested.
1. 4.2 percent is less than 6.2 percent, so yes, the SS benefit would be less, but what of the rest?
2. The 2 percent is not in the stock market, but invested 85-90 percent in various treasury bonds and safe instruments of income — far more conservative than most people’s portfolios.
3. At a growth rate of 4 percent, the invested part would double in 18 years and redouble in 36, becoming greater than the 4.2 percent part. The parts together yield more income, not less.
4. Seniors, like me, would not likely participate. Not enough years left for the 2 percent part to grow. We’d continue with usual SS. It’s pay-as-you-go, anyway.
5. The 2 percent is yours. When you die, it passes as your estate directs.
6. It’s voluntary. If you fear the risk, you can stay with traditional unsplit SS, but don’t deny the younger workers this choice.
Shame on AARP and Rick Larsen, etc., who have published misleading “information” on this, scaring the public. Clinton and Bush saw the benefits and John Koster gets this.
Ken Strain
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
