Social Security: The Phony Crisis (Paperback)

But the authors point out, the specificity is illusory, all lever-pulling and smoke-blowing from the Wizard of Oz. The projections aren't economic but actuarial extrapolations based on assumptions that the all the actuaries know are fictitious at best. Tweak them ever so slightly--lift real wages by a quarter- or half-percent per annum, or immigration by a little--and the so-called "crisis" disappears entirely. But according to the apparat-niks at the CATO Institute and the attack dogs at the OUT-Fox-ed Network--you might think the numbers have come down from Moses. They haven't. Social Security isn't in trouble and the criticisms of it are not logical as the authors of "The Phony Crisis" point out.

First of all, Social Security is an INSURANCE System, not an "investment". When you factor in the cost of buying disability and survivor insurance and "invest the difference"...the performance "advantage" of equity markets gets razor-thin at best. It turns out that Social Security yields the same as nice safe government bonds, which any intelligent investor knows should form the basis of an investment portfolio.

Secondly, the so-called performance advantage of the markets has a whole lot of IFs that the PRIVATEERS conveniently fail to mention.

Forget hyper-collapse 1929-style for the moment. Since the Crash of October 1987, U.S. markets have been on a nonstop charge; but if you'd gone into the same markets in 1970, you were worse off by 1980--not to mention where you'd be today if you'd bet on Japan in the mid-eighties or Southeast Asia's "sure thing" markets a couple of years ago. Will you do all right in the long term, as brokers and economists insist? Well, probably yes--but then as Keynes observed..."in the long run, we're all dead."

Here's where the income and wealth distribution effects of privatization turn very ugly. For millions of Americans--who bet on Kaypro instead of Microsoft (oops), Pan Am instead of American (sorry) or cattle futures without the skill and connections of Hillary Clinton (smile, please)--life at 75 could mean not "golden years" but working for the folks at the golden arches, or even being out on the street. A FACT of life that the young people who invested in the dotcom bubble are learning the hard way.

How many of us realistically will beat the averages? If 120 million workers are turned loose to bet the markets---40 million of whom are marginally literate or numerate--as the privateers recommend---it turns out that most will lose. The mutual fund industry's dirty little secret is that three-fourths of funds under-perform market indexes. Yet such funds have millions of na�ve investors in them; in one recent survey, a majority of mutual fund investors couldn't even distinguish between a "load" and a "no-load" fund.

There is another issue, so far undiscussed in the debate. For the first time in nearly thirty years, the federal budget's in balance. But it's in balance because each year the Treasury borrows $80 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and "covers" the deficit in the rest of the federal budget. If a big piece of Social Security contributions go into private accounts, the trust fund surplus will disappear and the federal budget will plunge back into deficit. Which federal programs are we supposed to cut to make up for it?

If you count the cost of the so-called "free market reforms" over the past twenty years--to a once-viable savings-and-loan system, to Mexican workers and peasants (who've paid for bailouts not once but twice), to the world's poor as they've worked off the global debt crisis. Think about the lives of Indonesian peasants, or Korean and Thai workers today--all set to pay for the "can't miss" marketization of Southeast Asia, just as Americans have so wonderfully benefited from downsizing, capital-gains reduction and globalization.

The folks that brought you ALL these disasters are the ones telling us that now it's Social Security's turn to face the "free market reform" just because it doesn't meet the ideological test of a handful of right-wing zealots.

Social Security is not a disaster. Benefits are moderately progressive, meaning that the bottom 60 percent of retirees get more back than they paid in. More than 90 percent of us pay into it during our working lives and more than 90 percent of us can count on its benefits when we retire. The minor adjustments that are outlined by the authors are all that is necessary to save Social Security.