The Real Pro-Choice Party

Allow me to highlight what part of President Bush’s speech yesterday appealed most to me:

Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises being made to younger workers with real assets, real money. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option, the opportunity if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.

The money from a voluntary personal retirement account would supplement the check one receives from Social Security. In a reformed Social Security system, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that he or she can pass on to whomever he or she chooses. Americans who would choose not to save in a personal account would still be able to count on a Social Security check equal to or higher than the benefits of today’s seniors.(emphasis added)

Imagine the power of this proposal! Social Security would no longer be something that goes away when you die, YOU would actually be able to pass on the money YOU invested into it to your children, for example, if you die before you received your money. In this aspect, it would be very similar to how a 401k is done now.

And you know what, this part of the proposal would be especially beneficial to us minorities, since we have a shorter lifespan than whites.

And what do the Democrats have to say about this? After arguing that minors as young as 14 should have the right to make their own decisions whether or not to perform abortions, they immediately turn around and say that those of us in our early to late 20’s are too stupid to know how to invest our own money.

Democrats become pro-choice and champion personal responsibility only when it comes to matters of life and death, but when it comes to investing your own money in social security, or parents choosing where to send their kids through a voucher program, well no, now those types of choices are out of the question.

Who really is the pro-choice party here? The answer is pretty clear from my end.

Update: Coyote Blog has more.

6 Responses to “The Real Pro-Choice Party”


  • Having all sorts of problems posting today.

    Hasn’t the myth about minorities being screwed by social security been exploded. Here we go again.

    This is from the GAO report entitled

    SOCIAL SECURITY AND MINORITIES

    Earnings, Disability Incidence, and Mortality Are Key Factors That Influence Taxes Paid and Benefits Received

    Here is the link

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03387.pdf

    Here is the first sentence of the second paragraph. Summarizes the whole report

    Differences by race in the relationship between taxes paid and benefits received under Social Security are due mainly to differences in lifetime earnings, the incidence of disability, and mortality among the groups. In the aggregate, blacks and Hispanics have higher disability rates and lower lifetime earnings, and thus as a group tend to receive greater benefits relative to taxes than whites.

    By the way Bush proposal has made no mention of disabilities and whether you can start drawing your benefits upon disability.

  • Sorry about that, I have so much spam here that I block links for review, not sure how this link even got through. I always approve them, I just do it to keep the spammers out.

    I’ve collected several discussion on that here, but we needn’t get into all of those details, suffice it to say that Bush’s current plan will help even more those who currently happen to die younger, and minorities, especially blacks, have a higher chance of dying younger than others, so Bush’s current plan is an even greater benefit to minorities.

  • “Imagine the power of this proposal! Social Security would no longer be something that goes away when you die, YOU would actually be able to pass on the money YOU invested into it to your children, for example, if you die before you received your money. In this aspect, it would be very similar to how a 401k is done now.”

    Sorry wrong again. Don’t believe the sales pitch, read the fine print.

    Hear is a little article that I found with a quick google. Summarizes the whole proposal as far as receiving your benefits.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05087/477888.stm

    Let me pick a couple of points to correct your misinformation:

    According to senior administration officials:

    You couldn’t withdraw from or borrow against your account the way you can with 401(k) retirement savings plans or Individual Retirement Accounts.

    You must buy an annuity on retiring that gives you a monthly payment for life.

    Even the administration says it is not like a 401K.

    Q: Would my annuity die with me, leaving nothing for my heirs?

    A: Yes, unless you add features that cover your spouse or a nonspousal heir, in which case your monthly payment will fall further. But retirement expert Paul Yakoboski of the TIAA-CREF Institute agrees such a response is understandable: “People don’t want to get hit by a bus and lose it all.”

    The real inheritance issue under private accounts and annuities is the fate of spouses. Social Security now provides for current and former spouses with exes automatically getting benefits if the marriage lasted 10 years: Surviving spouses collect the benefit they earned over their own work years or the benefit of their late spouse, whichever is higher, while stay-at-home spouses get two-thirds of the couple’s benefit.

    The White House considers private accounts “marital assets,” however, and marital assets are governed by state laws that vary widely when handling property divisions.

    Marital assets typically pass to the current spouse and children from current and former marriages, with most states setting a minimum share for a spouse, says benefits expert Anna Rappaport, a former president of the American Society of Actuaries. She also notes that marital assets are subject to court-approved division in divorce, but here state laws also vary with retirement accounts and other assets subject to negotiation.

    The upshot, says University of Wisconsin benefits expert Karen Holden: “There likely would be less protection than in the current system.”

  • “Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that he or she can pass on to whomever he or she chooses. ”

    Most of the money will still be placed within a annuity, so that the person does not fall below poverty rate, the money that could possibly passed on would vary if lets say you fail to meet 3.0% return that would equal SS return, less money would be directed into annuity(so you would lose benefits) less money would be siphoned to the “nest egg”(not much for you to use “freely” or pass on). money not placed within annuity is the money which will be passed on.

    You say that this proposal can help minorities the most, now arent you the person that said there should be “test” or rather “eligibility” to ensure safety for the poor, and halt disproportionate gain for the wealthy, now can you guess in which category most minorities would fall under…

  • Some interesting stuff, thanks for the info. Bush’s proposal has not yet been completely finalized, we need to see what he is proposing and all the details that come with it. If what you say is true, than it seems that that would directly contradict what he said in his speech. But like I said earlier, his proposal hasn’t been finalized. Let’s hope he sticks to what he proposed here.

    I will read more on this and get back to you.

  • The proposal should allow people the option not to buy an annuity and take periodic withdrawals. People really aren’t stupid, and at 65 you know how to handle your life better than the government.

    What I like about the proposal is that I think raising the tax rates so high in the early 1980s made it much harder for lower income people to save and get a ahead. This proposal reverses that trend.

    I think the idea that any 60 plus year old can’t make better decisions for himself than the government is extremely ridiculous. A part of the left is just showing that they are elitist and know nothing about the poorer or immigrant people in this country. Believe me, Teresa Kerry couldn’t figure out how to live on a low income. It takes strategizing. It’s the middle class people who generally are profligate spenders. The poor already know how to watch their pennies.

Leave a Reply