Toomey: Privatize Social Security? Who, me?
Debate over the future of Social Security, and the meaning of "privatization" divides candidates in PA Senate race.
Toomey: Privatize Social Security? Who, me?
In
“I’ve never said I favor privatizing Social Security,” Toomey said Monday in response to a question at the Press Club of Pennsylvania in
Except that for a decade or more Toomey has spoken of reforming the entitlement program by allowing younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes and thus “own” their savings in a personal retirement account. The idea has its own chapter in his book, The Road to Prosperity, and Toomey was a leading advocate of former President George W. Bush’s 2005 plan for personal accounts.
Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic candidate, said that Toomey is the one who’s being intentionally misleading.
“If there’s ever a time to be out there and being straight with the voters as to where you stand on an issue, it’s now,” Sestak said in an interview Wednesday after a campaign stop in the Tioga section of
But what Toomey is talking about, strictly speaking, is not privatization at all, spokeswoman Nachama Soloveichik said. In his plan, younger workers would be given the option of putting some of their social-security taxes in a personal account. It would be voluntary, and Toomey has said those who are retired or near retirement should get the benefits they’re entitled too under the current system.
“That is not privatizing,” Soloveichik said. “When you privatize something you take the government out of it – but the government would still be running social security and regulating the personal accounts.”
Sestak said that, had Social Security funds been in the market during the current crash, “you’d have 20 million more seniors who would have fallen into poverty.” He believes that allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent of wage earners – those making $250,000 or more – would take care of the program’s long-term solvency challenge.
Don’t expect the issue to go away. Democrats in races around the nation are raising the specter that Republicans will destroy the venerable Social Security program in the Wall Street casino. It has been a potent wedge issue for years for the Democrats.
The hook: Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of
Toomey's lying to hide his agenda, just as the rest of the GOP is doing.— Jeff West
If Social Security is such a great deal, why is it mandatory? And Joe Sestak is dead wrong about "senior falling into poverty" - as even after the collapse, the stock market had done a LOT better that the 0% rate of interest Social Security offers. But Toomey is accurate, he only supports "personal accounts" with a proportion of currently mandated SS contributions, not true "privatization" of the system. My preference would be the latter - scrap Social Security entirely and just send me my money back.- I don't know Jeff, seems like it's you with the agenda. Social Security will not be solvent, Sestak is lying. Maybe if that were our only unfunded mandate but with debt service, Medicare, infrastructure, PBGC there will not be enough money and cuts or increases below the rate of inflation will occur, you can bank it. the main reason democrats and probably a lot of republicans oppose private accounts is that it gives individuals some measure of control over their money, which means less money for them to waste on idiotic programs and wars. moreover, the voting block that opposes reform is seniors, who vote early and often...reform is quite popular with younger people who aren't neocommunists.— dreinterests
Comment removed.- Don't worry because if Social Security goes broke we can always rely on the PHA to get us a nice place to live. If that fails, we can become "farmers" and get in on the Pigford III suit. USDA has our backs too. Our politicians always have our best interests at heart as they fight for truith, justice, a little payola. It's the new American way! Ain't change great.— Fillzee
- It's very difficult to believe the representatives of either party. The threat of insolvency would not exist if Congress would pay back all of the funds taken to feed their port barrel projects. Is that ever going to happen? I hear no promises from either party on that issue. As for Mr. Sestak, is he one of the Obama Democrats who want the social security which American citizens have contributed to for many years to go to ILLEGALS???— indiePA
- Privatizing social security is not a bad idea. Looking over the years I have worked I estimate for my wife and I our social security payout to be approx $500,000. That is if one of us lives for at least 20 years in retirement. In a privatized plan I have calculated using the same contribution rate assessed over the years that we would have well over $1.5 million (4% ROR used for the example). The $500,000 amassed under social security dies when we die. Now the privatized plan, assuming no growth will still have about $1 million remaining which can be passed on to our beneficiaries. This is a rather simple explanation for privatizing social security, but it is better than the lame argument or lack of that is espoused by the pseudo-intelligencia.— junethe4th
- If the government can reach into your paycheck and confiscate 12.4 percent of your pay before you've tithed, taken care of your family or saved a penny for your retirement, are you a citizen or a slave? Do truly free people ask the government when they can have their money back; money that was ostensibly "contributed" to a government mandated retirement plan known as Social Security? At what age could you retire if 12.4 percent of your pay had not been confiscated throughout your working life? Why doesn't Toomey favor full and immediate privatization of Socialist Insecurity?— Elizabeth A. Male
