Suggested Title:  An Apology for Social Security Privatization

 

Everyone with whom I have discussed Social Security (SS) “privatization” lately has questions, doubts and concerns: a) how it might affect current SS annuities, b) whether the investments are insured, c) its effect on the stock market, and d) “cost.”  Politicians and political parties have not helped; Republicans have poorly explained the proposed changes and Democrats have criticized a straw man. 

 

I have three goals: (1) To explain what “privatization” implies, as best one can determine before a draft of the actual legislation is released.  (2) To assure young workers that privatization would be a good thing for them.  (3) To provide enough facts that motivated citizens will be able to evaluate SS proposals.

 

Let me start by pointing out that no plan of which I am aware would change the promised SS annuities of those who are already retired nor of those who are near retirement.  When new plans are announced, however, we need to be watchful. 

 

Now to the private investment portion of a modified SS system. 

Privatization, as explained by Congressman Charles Taylor, is a variation on a proven investment program already in place for Federal Government workers for 18 years, the highly successful Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) in which my wife and I chose to participate while Federal Government employees.

 

Briefly, “The TSP is a retirement savings and investment plan for Federal employees.  Congress established the TSP in the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.  The purpose of the TSP is to provide retirement income.  The TSP offers Federal employees the same type of savings and tax benefits that many private corporations offer their employees under ‘401(k)’ plans.”  The TSP combines with a small government annuity and with Social Security (!) to provide the retirement income for many current Federal workers.  Additional information is available on the government’s TSP website, www.tsp.gov/features/index.html.

 

My wife and I invested up to 5% of our pre-tax income in any one of three investment funds.   Presently, Federal workers can invest up to 14% in any combination of five investment fund(s).   These include the Government Securities Investment (G) Fund, the Fixed Income Index Investment (F) Fund, the  Common Stock Index Investment (C) Fund, the Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment (S) Fund, and the International Stock Index Investment (I) Fund.  As documented on the TSP website, annual return on the TSP funds has ranged from 4.3% to 11% per year over the last 10 years, much better than SS!  Investing in particular stocks or bonds is not a TSP- offered option, nor have I heard of any privatization plan offering that.

 

And what about risk?  This very popular plan has grown from its inception.   To be sure, the valuation of my C Fund shares, indexed as they are to the S&P 500 Index, has gone up and down since I invested.   If I had been more conservative, I could have chosen to invest some or all of my money in Government securities.   That fund has earned money regularly, has not had the ups and downs of the C fund, but has returned less than the C fund over time.  For more details, see http://www.tsp.gov/rates/monthly-history.html. 

 

Probably most important, like a 401(k) plan, the money my wife and I invested in TSP belongs to us, not the Government.   Right now, it sits in our chosen fund(s), growing.  As Federal retirees, we could withdraw any or all of our investment shares at any time.  The ownership portion of the plan is very important for young workers.   Having made their investments in some combination of these funds, young workers can expect to earn much more with those privatized dollars than with the rest of their SS “investment,” based the 18-year history of the TSP. 

 

Certainly there are trade-offs in this business.  The more that can be individually invested, the better the plan is for younger workers.  The more that younger workers individually invest, the fewer the dollars available for funding existing retirement annuities.  The “cost” of transition to privatization will be trumpeted by opponents; the “cost” of not privatizing is rarely discussed, even though it is just as real!  We’ve been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul for many years now, and there’s no free lunch!  There is no “lock box” filled with the SS “Trust Fund.”   The lock box contains only IOU’s.   Some day, all of this borrowing will catch up with us. 

 

When new plans are proposed this year, check them for a) choices of percentage to be invested, b) choices of funds, c) changes in the payouts for older workers who don’t choose to invest.  Look back at the history of the TSP and be assured that the investment portion of whatever plan is proposed will probably work well.

 

George E. Keller, Vice-Chair of the Buncombe County Republican Party