Constructive gadfly

Since its inception diehard elected officials in the Republican Party have been against social security — except at reelection time. Now they try to hide behind “privatizing” the fund, though it is primarily a safety net for millions who depend on it. Along with these diehards are the wealthy of both parties who simply don’t get it.

The vast majority of us underlings are Wall Street ignorant and except for those lucky enough to have retirement pensions and 401K’s they have no investments nor the savvy to engage in it, and the few who do usually make the wrong decisions.

“Don’t fix what’s not broke. “ Social security is invested in Government Securities, the safest investment. The cowboy investors are not satisfied with investments backed up by the government and would rather be at risk — and they have the wealth to indulge in the gamble. I say go right ahead and let them opt out of social security altogether by taxing them 5% of their total payroll to help support the rest of us. True, they would forgo Medicare as well but they have the wealth for their own insurance. Few would take this option because they would realize that social security is, after all, security.
  
Comments
on Nov 25, 2003
You don't need to invest in stock. How about this crazy idea: Put money into a savings account.

Who's really being greedy? The wealthy or the people who demand that the wealthy pay for other people's retirement because they never learned the story about the ant and the grasshopper?
on Nov 25, 2003
Clever reply. The only problem with a savings account is that those on the poverty line don;t have anything left over--except perhaps for the old dollar a week CHristmas Club.