A Painless Social Security Solution?
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) claims that it is possible to restore solvency without changing benefits if the individual accounts are large enough ["GOP Battles Public Displays of Division on Social Security," news story, May 13].
The Social Security plan that Mr. Ryan has offered with Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) would restore solvency, but it is not the size of the accounts in the plan that would achieve this goal. Rather, the plan would restore solvency by relying on deep spending cuts and increased corporate tax revenue to finance substantial transfers of general revenue to the Social Security trust fund. While debate on the merits of these measures is legitimate, the authors should acknowledge that the same measures could just as easily be tapped to fix current Social Security without the accounts.
Social Security Administration actuaries estimated that without general revenue transfers, the individual accounts in the plan would increase Social Security's actuarial deficit by nearly 50 percent, and the trust fund would be broke by 2015.
Individual accounts can be an important component of a comprehensive reform plan, but they do not provide a painless solution to the financial challenges facing Social Security.
ED LORENZEN
Executive Director
Centrists.org
Washington
