Can the DOGE finally end mismanagement of Social Security?

By Free Republic | Created at 2024-12-11 16:53:23 | Updated at 2024-12-22 06:49:02 1 week ago

Can the DOGE finally end mismanagement of Social Security?
American Thinker ^ | December 11, 2024 | Frank Ryan

Posted on 12/11/2024 8:22:52 AM PST by NorthernDancer

When Social Security was established, it was intended to be a self-funding system from the employer and employee contributions. This self-funding is why Social Security is not an entitlement. The fund is, instead, a horribly managed defined benefit pension plan — horribly managed by legislation, not by negligence.

The advent of DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) has provided the mechanism, impetus, and political will to challenge the status quo.

Concerns about the solvency of the Social Security System have been bandied about for decades. Solutions have, unfortunately, focused on increasing the Social Security tax rates, increasing retirement age, increasing taxability of benefits, and in some extreme cases making Social Security benefits “needs”-based.

No one has discussed the elephant in the room, which is the manner in which the funds are invested.

… For full implementation of the change, Social Security trustees would be permitted to invest in investments typically allowable in financial markets with the caveat that all shares would be non-voting to preclude government interference. The investment criteria would exclude certain countries as designated by Congress from time to time.

Fund investments would be permitted in ETFs, mutual funds, guaranteed insurance products of a portfolio mix, and the like

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: investment; socialsecurity

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you.

I am drawing Railroad Retirement. The author didn’t mention that, a couple of decades ago, legislation was passed, with union support, reducing the full retirement age from 62 to 60 (with 30 years of service), in exchange for flexible investments of the funds. As far as i know, it’s working well.

To: NorthernDancer

Perhaps DOGE can end Social Security’s Perverse Financial Incentive for the Government to kill 65+ year olds?

2 posted on 12/11/2024 8:27:02 AM PST by Jan_Sobieski (Sanctification)

To: NorthernDancer

When Social Security was established, it was intended to be a self-funding system from the employer and employee contributions. This self-funding is why Social Security is not an entitlement.

Wrong. It's the very definition of an entitlement, even more so under the original intention. I don't understand why so many conservatives don't understand this simple concept.

3 posted on 12/11/2024 8:31:02 AM PST by LittleBillyInfidel (This tagline has been formatted to fit the screen. Some content has been edited.)

To: NorthernDancer

I read the article earlier. I agree with the premise that the SS fund should be allowed to diversify its investments beyond just govt debt.

However, IMHO the best solution would be to allow anyone who wants to, to opt out of SS. People who put into it could still get their checks. And if you opt out in part of your working life, you'll get lower checks in retirement (in exchange for keeping more of your paycheck during your working years).

4 posted on 12/11/2024 8:31:15 AM PST by Tell It Right (1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)

To: NorthernDancer

“The fund is, instead, a horribly managed defined benefit pension plan — horribly managed by legislation, not by negligence.”

DOGE can do nothing without legislation.

5 posted on 12/11/2024 8:41:06 AM PST by Wuli

To: NorthernDancer

Government can’t take care of everyone over 62/65, thus they came up with this social program. The only fix now is to privatize it slowly beginning with those entering the workforce.

6 posted on 12/11/2024 8:44:24 AM PST by 1Old Pro

To: NorthernDancer

SS is getting a 2.5% increase to account for inflation, are all federal employees, department budgets, and federal pensions, etc, all using that same inflation rate that SS uses?

7 posted on 12/11/2024 8:48:30 AM PST by ansel12 ((NATO warrior under Reagan, and RA under Nixon, bemoaning the pro-Russians from Vietnam to Ukraine.))

To: NorthernDancer

No one has discussed the elephant in the room, which is the manner in which the funds are invested.

There are no funds to invest. Everything brought in by the Social Security tax and then some is sent to the retirees. For a couple decades a little more was brought in than needed, but the rest of government immediately spent it like a cow being skeletonized by piranhas, leaving behind an "I Owe Me" in the infamous lockbox. But we have been spending that in the past few years. This just means that Social Security can dip into the general fund without explicit Congressional approval since we are just repaying the bonds to SS. Soon that will run out too, so any overspending will have to be explicitly approved.

If there are any plans to change SS to an investment based system, then payments into it will have to be raised enough to pay for the full current system and then raised again for the new investments.

8 posted on 12/11/2024 8:48:46 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Now unburdened by the Biden/Harris administration that has been.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Read Entire Article