Issue Position: Social Security
Issue Position
Democrats often say, as Jerry McNerney writes on his website, "After a lifetime of paying into Social Security and Medicare, America's seniors should be able to count on these programs to provide a stable and secure retirement. It is a sacred pact with seniors that we must protect." I completely agree. So why aren't the Democrats protecting Social Security?
Social Security currently pays you 0% on your lifetime investment
A lifetime of paying the social security tax of (6.2% in 2012), which is matched by your employer (6.2% in 2012), represents a huge amount of money and is one of the biggest investments you will make. By any measure, Social Security has a poor return on investment. If Social Security paid a 3 or 4% interest rate, then the AVERAGE Social Security recipient would receive double their current payment. If Social Security were optional, then no financial advisor in the country would recommend it. So why is Social Security such a poor investment? Social Security is a poor investment because the government spends Social Security money on all kinds of projects and programs unrelated to retirement benefits. To partially offset non-retirement spending, the government redefines and recalculates the cost of living increases. The government has redefined how the Social Security annual adjustment is calculated many times to reduce the next year's payments. As a result, the average interest on your huge investment is essentially 0%.
The Government "protectors" of Social Security continue to devise clever ways to cut Social Security
November 8, 2011 Update: Congress is working on cutting future Social Security benefits by adjusting the measure of inflation in a process called "Chained Consumer Price Index". USA Today Link
Social Security funds should be kept away from the spend-oholics in Congress by a Public/Private Organization
I'm a true conservative. I believe people need to be paid what they have been promised. I will push to have the Social Security payout massively increased to take today's seniors from a 0% percent interest on investment to a 2 or 3% interest on investment. My chance of success is zero as the self-proclaimed protectors of social security have already spent the money. I will push to have new money coming into Social Security off the books of the federal government to be kept in a separate government-backed institution away from Congressional spend-oholics. I will do this to make a point about truly protecting Social Security. In the meantime, perhaps Democrats, such as Jerry McNerney, will stop bragging about how much they protect Social Security. The only thing they are protecting our seniors from is the interest they refuse to pay after holding their money for 40 years.
Social Security investments should be gradually diversified as the US debt increases.
Social Security Funds should be diversified into a basket of Public bonds, Commodities, and AAA rated Corporate stocks as our debt goes past 100% debt/GDP ratio. It is too risky to put 100% of the Social Security money into the US Government as they spend us into financial oblivion. If the US Government pays off debt to less than 70% of debt to GDP, then the US Government is stable enough to run the entire Social Security program. For every 10% past the 70% of debt/GPD ratio, then 10% of Social Security should be diversified.
Social Security retirement should be tied to US life expectancy
Social Security was started when the average US life expectancy was much shorter than it is today. As life expectancy continues to increase, I will propose that the Social Security retirement age increase right along with it.
Only 10% of Social Security should be spent on non-retirement benefits
The disability programs that Social Security funds are rampant with fraud. Instead of having open-ended programs that currently consume 15% of the Social Security payments. I would propose that no more than 10% of Social Security be spent on these programs, the 10% going to the most needy.
Source