Social Security: Transition Costs 

Social Security: Transition Costs

Unbelievably, this is actually on the White House web site (via Atrios):

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, she's asking about the cost of the transition. It's estimated about $600 billion over a 10-year period of time to get the personal accounts started on the -- the way we've suggested they grow. It's a good question.


Yes, ma'am.


Q -- really understand how is it the new plan is going to fix that problem?


THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.


Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.


Okay, better? I'll keep working on it. (Laughter.)


The questioner actually asked about something I don't understand: why spend (and probably borrow) hundreds of billions of dollars (increasing to trillions after the first ten years, as Cheney has apparently confirmed) simply to achieve a transition to some kind of private plan? Why not just say: from a certain date, some of your dollars can go into a private plan?

Return to Main Page

Comments

Comment Because Bush's plan doesn't actually address any shortfall. His next statement, that we look at "the way benefits are calculated" is where the savings comes from. But private accounts just mean that we need to cut benefits deeper than without them. So maybe Bush can explain how private accounts are going to "save" social security. He can't, because that's not the reason. His reasons are idealogical, part of his ownership society. And you don't want to be a non-owner in an ownership society. Truthfully, the Democrat plan, while more modest and not as exciting, actually does address the coming shortfall.

Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:50 am MST by Anonymous

Add Comment




Search This Site


Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy


Free Blog Hosting