Monday, December 20, 2010

If Congress is serious about cutting deficits and curbing spending, it will have to re-evaluate all entitlement programs. It is an undeniable truth that the Social Security system is unsustainable. Criticism and calls for reform of Social Security are dismissed as blasphemous and un-American. The mythology of Social Security, the holy grail of progressives, is defended and propagated with misinformation and deception with cultlike religious fervor.

One of the myths perpetuated is that only government can provide the “security” in Social Security. Since 1980, when more than 75 percent of municipal workers in Galveston, Texas, voted and were permitted to opt out of the system, workers who earned $51,000 per year are receiving $3,846 per month; workers who earned $75,000 are receiving $4,540 per month in retirement. The Galveston plan is financially sound, fully funded in advance and invests in guaranteed investment contracts, avoiding risky assets.

There is no “retirement age,” participants own their investment, can designate beneficiaries, can pass it on to their heirs and have a choice of options for payment of benefits. Most importantly, politicians cannot raid the funds to pay other bills. It behooves us to examine this successful plan as an alternative and model for reform.

Some claim that this kind of investment and “privatization” is risky, ignoring the fact that most retirement portfolios, including police, firefighter, teacher and corporation pension funds, annuities, municipal entities, hospitals, foundations and 401(K)s are similarly invested. The government’s Social Security program is truly one of a kind. It is neither an investment nor a savings account, but a Ponzi scheme that has run out of other people’s money.

Common sense dictates we explore alternatives and stop recycling failed economic policies. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is, according to Albert Einstein, the definition of insanity.

ED KONECNIK

Flushing, N.Y.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide