Peter Ferrara

Social Security has two major problems that necessitate fundamental reform now. The program will fall far short of funds to pay promised benefits to today's middle-aged and younger workers, according to Social Security's own trustees. Additionally, workers get a very low return on the money they pay into the system. Saving and investing the money in personal accounts would yield much higher returns. Such accounts would solve the long-term bankruptcy problem as well.

The most desirable method of financing the transition to personal retirement accounts is to modestly reduce the growth rate of federal spending. Raising taxes would harm the economy. And future benefit cuts are wholly unnecessary, not only because they would do nothing to bridge the short-term financing gap, but also because the eventual proceeds from large personal accounts would more than offset any savings gained from cuts in promised benefits.

The Chief Actuary of Social Security has scored the Ryan-Sununu Social Security reform bill, which provides for large personal retirement accounts, as achieving full and permanent solvency of the program without benefit cuts or tax increases. Eventually there would be substantially higher benefits as well as tax cuts. The unfunded liability of Social Security also would be eliminated.

It is mistaken to assume that the cost of transitioning to Social Security personal accounts is based on the amount of general revenues that would be needed to finance the transition. This measure, which excludes items that are true costs and includes other items that are not true costs, is biased against personal accounts.

The enormous benefits of Social Security reform involving large personal accounts is quite achievable, as is the proposed transition financing. A manageable amount of debt would be issued in the early years and paid off during the course of the reform. The reform plan would promote modest restraint in the growth of other federal spending, and should produce significant revenue feedback effects.

Some suggest that proposals for Social Security reform should be judged by the degree to which they require general revenue financing. But this flawed yardstick is biased against personal account plans, because it doesn't accurately measure transition costs, and doesn't account for the dramatically increased benefits of personal accounts. The only way to evaluate reform plans is to weigh all of the costs against all of the benefits.

Up until now, establishment Washington has assumed that any personal account option for Social Security would involve at most 2 percentage points or so of the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax. But earlier this year, IPI published a plan offering a progressive personal account option for Social Security which involves a much larger personal account option, averaging 6.4 percentage points. That plan has now been officially scored by the Chief Actuary of Social Security regarding how it would impact Social Security, and in particular the long term financial deficits of that program.

A well-designed personal account option for Social Security would be substantial, highly progressive, and would provide a broad array of benefits and advantages for working people across the board, including low-income workers, minorities, and others. This study provides a concrete, specific and detailed proposal for reform that delivers on the promise of a true personal account option.

Articles include "Putting Social Security in Your Hands," "Privatizing Social Security is Better for Everyone," "Spending Spree Shrinks the Surplus," "Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know It," and "Time to Bury the Estate Tax."