Correct, sir!
Now you begin to see the issue.
"Insurance" by definition guarantees payment. The funds aren't spent for current expenses.
Soc Security is like much in modern government has grown to be scam, promoted by semantics for political needs.
If anyone ever uses the word "INSURANCE" in connection with social security, someone goes to jail, gets impeached or fired. It's a hot potato that's been cooking since 1934.
Except that now it's a multi-trillion dollar problem and
Politicians love having trillions in a slush fund to bandy about. The truth is that only the continuing good wishes of Congress will keep payments, and any "emergency", etc. that needs to be used can and will be, to reduce payments, extend retirement age, etc., and too bad for anyone depending on a specific payout or return of their money.
I.e., it's simply a very large tax, with an undefined social program (old age pension) in the same sentence, to create the illusion of a pension.
A financial insurance program is a different deal altogether. That would be money-in, money-out, and don't hypothecate those funds twice.
They can get away with it like other insurance scams, by obfuscation, and the long-term reckoning.
Of course, the gov't can always print more trillions and inflate their way out of a problem, but we all know what that does to spending power and inflation, and the problem doesn't go away.
Privatization has the attraction of the illusion of "keeping" the money. Unfortunately, this administration has zero financial credibility, and it's unlikely those funds will be protected in any way. The past 25 years the Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility in government, odd as that seems, and the Bushes in particular have spent into oblivion. Looks like we're in for a repeat. |
