Some Inheritance

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/op...23wed1.html?th

As he stumps for Social Security privatization, President Bush always gets a big round of applause for promising that the money in a private account could be passed on to one's heirs.

If those happy clappers only knew the details.

Under the president's proposal, when you retired you would not be able to start spending the money in your private account until after you bought an annuity, a financial contract in which you hand over a lump-sum payment and, in return, get a monthly stream of income for life. The upside of buying such an annuity would be that you'd be protected against outliving all of your money. The downside is that even if you died immediately after retirement, the most your heirs would inherit would be the amount that remained in your private account after you had paid for the mandatory annuity. (If you lived longer, of course, you might well need to spend the remainder to supplement the annuity's low monthly payout. )

The idea of making the private accounts part of one's estate is particularly appealing to low- and middle-income earners, who may not have all that much to leave to their heirs under normal circumstances. But those are exactly the people who would have to use the largest share of their accounts to buy annuities. The government would require that annuities be large enough to keep recipients above the poverty line for life. The less you had to start with, the less you'd have left over after buying the mandatory annuity.

What if you died before you retired? As with many claims Mr. Bush makes about Social Security privatization, the fate of your private account in the event of your untimely death is unclear. But one issue that raises big doubts about whether that money could be inherited is the question of how the trillions of dollars the government would have to borrow to set up a privatized system would be repaid.

Under the president's proposal, when you retired, your traditional Social Security retirement benefit would be cut by an amount equal to all the deposits you had made into your private account plus interest. (The interest would be three percentage points higher than the rate of inflation.) The benefit cut would be each person's contribution to repaying the huge debt the Bush administration would take on to "pay for" privatization.

But if you died before you retired, you would have already used some of that borrowed money to set up the private account and yet would never have made any contribution to repaying the debt. So in that case, how would the government recoup your share of the amount it had borrowed? Well, it could let your share of the debt go unpaid - in effect bequeathing to your heirs and their fellow citizens ever-higher deficits. Or your spouse could inherit your private account and the benefit cut that went with it. Or the government could take its cut from your private account before the money went to your survivors - a grab that could wipe out your stash.

The White House would hotly deny that the last alternative could happen. Nothing freaks out the Bush administration more than the suggestion that the government would ever tap someone's private account - even for money that is owed to the government. It doesn't, however, seem too bothered about gutting your traditional benefits. Go figure.

[irishgrl]

DONT TRUST IT. period. If the Bush Administration suggests it, its corrupt.
I HATE THAT MAN and his policies.

[SuzeQuze]

TM would agree that SS is fine, if you want to take action, see below:

Social Security is One of America's Most Successful Anti-Poverty Programs
Tell Congress Not to Wreck It

Social Security was created after the national tragedy of the Great Depression left many senior citizens without the simple necessities of food and shelter. It's worked well by dramatically reducing poverty among retired and disabled Americans, and by supporting folks who have had hard breaks in life.

Left unattended, the Social Security fund indeed will run into trouble in a few decades. Yet the "remedy" President Bush is pushing will not address the projected shortfall, and instead will drive up government borrowing dramatically. [1] Many analysts believe that is actually the president's goal. His advisors call it "Starving the Beast" -- intentionally soaking up so much of the federal budget paying off the additional debt that there will be less money available to invest in human needs programs. [2]

There are much more rational adjustments that can be made to the Social Security program. These adjustments will protect retirees now and into the future, and they'll avoid running up the debt. [3]

Help your elected representatives have the backbone to stand up to the president and refuse to wreck Social Security while borrowing our grandchildren into crushing debt.

If you're a TrueMajority member and you would like to send a message (text below) to your Members of Congress urging them to oppose Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, just click "reply" and "send" to send your free message (text below). If this was forwarded to you, or if you would like to customize the message to your lawmaker, click here:

http://truemajority.kintera.org/socialsecurity

Watching Washington for you,

Darcy Scott Martin

Here's more:

[1] The respected think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has developed a thorough analysis of the administration's plan, making clear this "remedy" wouldn't deal with projected shortfalls but would drive up government borrowing. It goes into detail with charts and graphs to demonstrate that private accounts will not make Social Security solvent and is economically unwise. Check it out at
http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec4.htm

[2] New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes the Social Security scheme as the latest ploy in the conservatives' "Starve the Beast" gambit. "The attempt to 'jab a spear' through Social Security complements the strategy of 'starve the beast,' long advocated by right-wing intellectuals: cut taxes, then use the resulting deficits as an excuse for cuts in social spending. The spearing doesn't seem to be going too well at the moment, but the starving was on full display in the budget released yesterday." See his column at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0208-31.htm.

[3] Our friends at the Center for American Progress crafted a detailed alternative plan to Bush's for really safeguarding Social Security in a safe and sustainable way. Check it out at:
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/...EB%20FINAL.pdf

Here's the message we'll deliver to your Members of Congress:
Dear [your member's name]:
I oppose privatizing Social Security. This program is one of America's most successful anti-poverty programs, and provides a safety net for the poorest retirees. Gambling with their benefits is unwise. So too is adding trillions of dollars to the federal debt to fund the privatization.

Worse, this scheme does nothing to address Social Security's funding problems. Please reject the privatization proposal, and enact reforms that strengthen retiree benefits.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]

[SuzeQuze]

from spreading lies about AARP. These are the same people that put together the false Swift Boat ads against Kerry. Here is an example of the types of images this group intends to disseminate.



Please go to the link below if interested in signing the petition:

http://bsd.democracyforamerica.com/p...on/stopusanext