As Social Security's problems become more apparent, there ：作为社会保障的问题日益明显有

1、.Social Security ReformSam NadlerMinnesotaHouse Committee on Oversight and Govt. ReformChurchill Junior High SchoolAs Social Security's problems become more apparent, there is growing support for privatizing the retirement program. As the debate intensifies, it becomes more important to move bey

2、ond generalizations and provide detailed proposals for accomplishing privatization. Few people seriously dispute that Social Security is in need of reform (). The surge in retirees in the near future from the baby boom generation will cause a surge in benefit payments from the system,

3、 and in just 15 years the system will be paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes(NorthernF). By 2042 the so-called Trust Fund will be exhausted and Social Security will only be able to pay 73 percent of promised benefits to retirees (Altig and Gokhale). The biggest beneficiary of any S

4、ocial Security privatization would be the U.S. economy. Increased investment in private enterprise-whether through stocks or bonds-should create more economic opportunities and boost domestic growth (Penny and Abdner). It may also contribute to greater productivity, resulting in a lower inflation ra

5、te that would help retirement savings go further. As the proportion of retirees in the U.S. grows, one of the challenges for a shrinking workforce is to produce enough goods and services for both themselves and the retired population. More investment capital in the private sector should result in th

6、e kind of productivity gains necessary to meet that challenge (N). Privatization would also have a significant impact on the financial markets, especially the stock market. Younger individuals are likely to invest most of their contributions in stocks, and the increased demand would propel stock pri

7、ces higher In addition, at least a portion of these funds will probably be invested in bonds, money market funds, and other types of investments. In fact, greater demand for bonds-a traditionally conservative investment-could push interest rates lower, which would provide a further lift to the econo

8、my ().While there is no disputing that reforms must be introduced soon, there is substantial debate as to what any reform should entail. The most popular reform option involves the introduction of individual accounts of some sort that workers would own, control, and be able leave to

9、their heirs (). Opponents of individual accounts advocate increasing payroll taxes to cover projected Social Security deficits, but the price tag is steep. A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the proposed payroll tax increases would shrink the U.S. econom

10、y by $87 billion per year by 2025 (Altig and Gokhale). Combined with the fact that President Bush has firmly declared that he would oppose any increase in payroll taxes, individual accounts are the main reform option on the table (Crane). Due to the nature of the pay-as-you-go system, where the taxe

11、s collected from current workers are used to pay for the benefits of current retirees, the initial diversion of money to private accounts would need to be funded through spending cuts or borrowing (N). Deficit hawks tend to choke when they see the price tag for introducing individual accounts could

12、require around $2 trillion or so over the next decade. In reality, the number that they should focus on is the $11.9 trillion needed for the current Social Security system to become and stay solvent. Reforming the system now is actually fiscally responsible (Altig and Gokhale). The introduction of p

13、rivate accounts would give today's workers new confidence in Social Security. In a country where a majority of the population does not believe that they will ever receive any money from Social Security, changing this perspective is necessary to save the system. With individual accounts every wor

14、ker would have a vested interest in a growing economy (Crane). If we are serious about reforming the system, we must do so immediately. Every year we wait gives us less time to accumulate capital that we can apply towards the reform. If we wait until the system is in deficit, as some suggest, reform

15、 without drastic benefit cuts or payroll tax increases will be next to impossible (Penny and Abdner). The President has stated repeatedly that Social Security reform would be at the top of his domestic agenda. As we are getting ready to vote on a new president, it is necessary to remember that refor

16、ming the system is not merely an option anymore (). We cannot afford not to reform the system - it is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Just two days after winning reelection, President Bush announced that reforming Social Security would be a top priority of his second term. In do

17、ing so, he can plausibly claim a mandate for reform. The challenge now is to bring this widespread support for individual accounts inside the Beltway (Penny and Abdner). It is promising that two rising stars of the Democratic Party, Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) and Senator-elect Barack Obama (D-Ill.),

18、 have both expressed interest in personal accounts. Bush also benefits from the addition of four new GOP senators who campaigned in favor of personal accounts.As the president proceeds, there are a few main points that need to be expressed Reform can't wait. In less than 15 years, Social Securit

19、y will begin spending more on benefits than it will take in through taxes (N). The Social Security Trust Fund has no real assets, a fact that President Clinton's 2000 Economic Report of the President makes explicit. The system faces unfunded liabilities of more than $11.9 trillion in present val

20、ue terms, $26 trillion in constant 2004 dollars (Altig and Gokhale). Every two-year election cycle that we wait costs an additional $320 billion. A successful Social Security reform will result in a solvent, sustainable system. It will improve Social Security's rate of return, provide better ret

21、irement benefits, and treat women, minorities, and low-income workers more fairly. Size matters (). Many proposals for Social Security reform would allow workers to invest only a small portion of their payroll taxes. Small accounts fail to take full advantage of the compounding dynami

22、c. Moreover, small account proposals will not allow low- and middle-income workers to accumulate meaningful wealth or achieve the other objectives of reform (Penny and Abdner). Individual accounts should be as large as feasible, ideally at least half of payroll taxes (N). There are several proposals

23、 in Congress now, including one by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) based on work by the Cato Institute, that show how this can be done in a fiscally responsible way. Higher returns, lower costs. Individual accounts will create a better, fairer and more secure retirement system. But they cannot create mir

24、acles. They will provide higher retirement benefits than Social Security can pay, but they will not make everyone into millionaires. They will help solve Social Security's financial crisis and save taxpayers trillions of dollars over the long run. Under a system of personal accounts, total costs

25、 to the government will be significantly reduced, although the timing of those costs will shift forward (Penny and Abdner). President Bush should not pretend otherwise. If Congress adopts personal accounts, it will have to find a way to pay for those costs. One possibility, which would be smart poli

26、tics for the GOP, would be to end corporate welfare and reallocate that money to Social Security reform. Ownership is the key. Ownership is critical in the debate over Social Security (). Most Americans are not aware that in the 1960 case of Flemming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court ruled

27、 that we have do not own our benefits. Under the current system, what you get back at retirement is entirely up to 535 politicians (N).A system of personal retirement accounts would truly meet the goals of the people who created the Social Security system. Through investment, low-wage workers would be able to accrue a substantial asset and enjoy higher benefits during retirement. Instead of a crushing tax