Sunday Social Security reads

The New York Times has at least two articles taking on the yeoman like work of Social Security reform. What strikes me most after reading the articles is that all the bogeymen that the Bush administration is throwing out there have been around since Social Security's inception. Every thing from economic anchor to unsustainability has been preached since the beginning. And it should be hard to take arguments that have been around as long as the program has been seriously.

Anyhow, both articles are worth a look.

A third article discusses Bush's inaugural address and his push for the "ownership society."

"When people have a stake in something," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said in an interview on Friday, explaining the president's rationale, "it makes the whole social system work better."

While this statement may sound good, it logically makes no sense. I have a stake in certain companies when I purchase stock, but that does not make those companies function any better. I own a watch, but time would continue to function if I had merely borrowed it from my neighbor.

Here's Cheney on the subject:

He said: "One of the great goals of our administration is to help more Americans find the opportunity to own a home, a small business, a health care plan or a retirement plan. In all of these areas, ownership is a path to greater opportunity, more freedom and more control over your own life, and this is a goal worthy of a great nation. Everyone deserves a chance to live the American dream, to build up savings and wealth and to have a nest egg for retirement that no one can ever take away."

Everyone already has the chance to live Cheney's "American Dream" regardless of Social Security. You reading this can go out and invest in your future right now. You can call a stock broker, log on to any number of online trading services, even squirrel away money in a mattress, and begin saving for retirement. But when you hit the golden years, an extra $1200 a month (as current payees get) is certainly going to help secure your future.

And one could argue that the more you own, the more tied down you are, and the fewer opportunities you have available. This would be especially true of private accounts, as one would have to monitor stock movements and investment opportunities if they wanted to get the most for their money.

This was not encouraging, either:

In their book "Coming Up Short," Alicia H. Munnell and Annika Sundén, economists at Boston College, examined the record of 401(k) plans, the retirement accounts in which workers control their investments and employers often contribute money. Only 25 percent of eligible workers participate in the plans, they found, and 9 of 10 invest less than the maximum, even when that means they are forgoing contributions from their employers. About 60 percent have dangerously undiversified portfolios, and most cash out their accumulations when they change jobs, rather than saving the money for retirement.

"With 401(k)'s, we've had an experiment in handing over to families the responsibility of saving and planning for retirement, and what we have found is that they make mistakes at each step along the way," Ms. Munnell, an economic policy official in the Clinton administration, said in an interview.

"It's not because they're stupid," she added. "It's because people live very busy, very complicated lives. They're working. They're getting their kids educated. They really do not have time to become financial experts."