Barr releases position paper on Social Security
August 14th, 2008 by Jason PyeBelow is a press release sent out from the campaign announcing the release of Bob’s position on Social Security. You can view Bob’s complete position paper on Social Security here.
“The U.S. is facing a financial tsunami as the Baby Boomers retire,” warns Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, on the 73rd anniversary of Social Security being signed into law. “The total unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare is more than $100 trillion—that is ten times the official national debt! The longer we wait to act, the harder it will be to reform the system,” says Barr.
“Social Security was sold to the American people as a system of social insurance, but that was merely a polite fraud to win their votes,” notes Barr. “It is a pay-as-you-go system. If it was run by a private company rather than the government, the managers would be jailed for running a Ponzi scheme, one of the classic investment swindles. The so-called trust fund doesn’t exist: in reality, it is a file cabinet full of IOUs rather than a vault full of cash,” he explains.
“The system is headed towards financial collapse,” Barr adds. “It starts running a deficit in 2017 and the red ink piles up fast. In essence, to keep the system afloat we will either have to double taxes or halve benefits. Neither is an appealing option.”
“Moreover, the rate of return for beneficiaries keeps falling. Many Americans are now losing money. Over the long term the most the majority of people can hope for is to make a percent or so—compared to 5.5 percent a year on average for a private investment in a mixture of bonds and stocks,” Barr observes. “The U.S. government is literally stealing people’s retirement from them.”
“I am proposing a system of private retirement accounts,” explains Barr. Younger workers will be able to put increasing amounts of their tax payments into individual accounts. New workers entering the system will be able to exit Social Security entirely. The transition will be paid for in part through savings from adjusting benefits to account for the erroneous use of a wage rather than price index for setting payments and the fact that beneficiaries are living longer. Other savings will be achieved by cutting nonessential programs throughout the government, including corporate welfare,” he adds.
“We cannot afford to wait any longer,” Barr observes. “One of the most important tests for the next president is a willingness to lead. The American people deserve to have a retirement system which they can count on.”
August 14th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I’ve been wanting something like this since I first stepped into the Libertarian Party. People will beable to save more and retire with actual wealth. Could you imagine if we did something like this with your money backed by gold…
August 14th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I am sorely disappointed.
“Younger workers will be able to put increasing amounts of their tax payments into individual accounts. New workers entering the system will be able to exit Social Security entirely.”
Why can’t anyone opt out and now?
Why does your solution involve continuing tax payments.
What we need is complete freedom from this fraud and now. A transition period for the oldest workers, yes, but any solution must include the ability for everyone and anyone to opt out and an end to the so-called payroll taxes of 15.3%.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
George Donnelly: From the way it looks to me (”…increasing amounts of their tax payments…”) Bob is advocating a transition toward freeing individuals from the system; one undoubtedly facilitated by reduced government waste and reduced corporate welfare. I was channel surfing the other day and caught a soundbite that said something like “87 percent of American corporations pay no federal income taxes.” Yikes.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
DJ, wouldn’t it be great if Bob Barr promised (as have LP candidates in the past) to abolish the IRS all together? What is stopping him?
August 14th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I see Bob will be appearing on The Colbert Report again. That is great news. While there, he should lobby for a Daily Show appearance.
He also HAS to play up the “What’s in it for me?” angle. That’s what people want to know. What are THEY getting if they vote for Bob Barr. Smaller government means nothing to most people. More freedom means nothing. Heck, most people have employers and have already given away some of their “freedom.”
Bob has to say, “When I’m president and government is smaller, the average American will have X amount of dollars more in their pockets every week. X amount of dollars to spend they way they want to spend it; to educate their children, take a dream vacation or save for a rainy day.”
August 14th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Nice detailed position paper, but I counted at least 5 typos and such.
Get a good proofreader before publishing, guys…!
August 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Wow, another thumbs down ding without reason or logical response. The LINOS hate me for no reason.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
George Donnelly and James R - We are all libertarian minded people so it makes sense to hack the IRS and social security. Unforntunately if he advocates doing that he will scare away non libertarians, people will vote for the big government hacks who make false promises and we get forever increasing government and taxes.
I am satisfied with what Barr is proposing because it puts a lid on the problem and atleast takes a step towards personal ownership and responsibility. At that point we can be in a better position to discuss what direction we should head next. At that point the big government advocates will not be able to scare people with the social security issue as easily.
If people are given a chance to accept privitization and see that it works they will likely cozy up to more libertarian principles.
And James R - I also agree with your last post. Sadly there are a lot of stupid, single minded voters out there and the Libertarians might as well show things at an angle that will win their attention and votes. Obama and McCain are already doing it and the people we are talking about aren’t going to be swayed by reason and principles.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Right, Thomas regarding the mindset of the average voter. For a party founded by an advertising man, (how many people on these boards know the history of the LP?) the LP and its candidates generally do a lousy job of marketing.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
This is very similar to what Dubya advocated in 2000 and a step backwards from what our candidate in 2004 advocated.
http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Social_Security.htm
Since when does the Libertarian candidate echo the GOP candidate from 2 elections ago? That is shameful.
Unforntunately if he advocates doing that he will scare away non libertarians
If we can’t get candidates for federal office that promise to do away with this ponzi scheme, the US of A is dead in the water in very few years.
It is time to be scared. Be very scared because we are not only in the hole $10 trillion on the national debt but we need at least $53 trillion in the bank today and earning interest to cover current entitlement commitments.
It is economically impossible to meet these commitments. And small corrections are not going to fix the base problem. This is fraud.
See http://perocharts.com for more information.
people will vote for the big government hacks
We just want them to vote for our big government hack, is that it?
August 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I am interested in this figure of 2017 for insolvency. Judging how the government makes its forecasts (X-number of dollars to be collected in X-year), its always far too liberal. Considering how the revenue take may be shrinking like the economy over the next few years, insolvency may be well within the second or even first term of the next President.
G
August 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Social Security as constituted must go.
BUT…it must be a transition, not an abrupt halt. There are tens of millions of people either near or in retirement for whom an abrupt end of S.S. would mean ruin. Such a move might be very Libertarian, but would also be unconscionable. (Not to mention undoable politically.)
Phasing out S.S. over a 25 - 35 year period is, on the other hand, very doable and salable.
Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I invite you all to read Bob Barr’s issues URLs
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/
Compare with the Liberatarian issues URLs
http://www.lp.org/issues
Read what is said about social security and taxes. I think you will find that Barr lines up pretty solidly with the LP issues and platform. We don’t all have to be exactly alike anyway. When I joined the only thing I had to swear to was, “I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” Besides that one non-negotiable there is a lot of room for some variance of ideas. At least I hope so. There is a couple of areas in the LP position that I’m still uncomfortable with as a new member. Also as the LP party grows, it will change unless a lot of education takes place. The whole is the consensus of the parts.
Also, I think Goerge Bush might have borrowed the private accounts idea from the Libertarians instead of the other way around. I read similar ideas from the Cato Institute in the past.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security
This is considerably more liberty-oriented than what Barr advocates.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
The reason why 87% of businesses pay no income taxes is because most businesses are small businesses or sole proprietorships. Meaning they pay personal income taxes rather than business income taxes. The other important statistic is determining how many of those businesses actually made money. Income is required to pay income taxes.
I agree with the proposal that everyone should be able to opt out of SS. Only those who can’t do math or are close to retirement age would stay in it… or those who are convinced it is better because they don’t pay attention to facts and only listen to politicians.
However the idea that everyone can just stop contributing and let those seniors hang out to dry is untenable. There must be some contribution from a certain number of the population so as to continue existing promised benefits to anyone who is, say 40 years old and up (40 being a generic figure, not a mathmatical one) who chooses to stay in the program. Anyone below the age of funding would be allowed to take their money and invest it however they see fit and enrollment for SS benefits should be closed.
Although Libertarian principles would recommend that we cease and desist all forced taxation and income redistribution thru the SS and Medicare programs, there must be a way that we can do justice to those who currently have no alternative or have been stolen from for far too long and cannot make that time up in private markets.
October 9th, 2008 at 6:19 am
What about all the money I have already paid into SS? Will I get that back so I have money to put in a private account or would I have to start all over? I have had money taken from me to put into SS for 33 years. I haven’t read everything on this site yet so it is too early for me to say I will vote for Bob Barr but if I don’t like the answer to this question I have to say it will be no.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:08 am
i have put in almost 30 yrs of taxes. i would support getting that money back on a schedule that would not harm others who had no choice but to “contribute” and need their social security, as they are either already retired or heading to retirement. whether that means a reimbursement on a monthly basis or a lump sum (either option untaxed, of course), more learned heads than mine may determine… just stanch the flow from my paycheck from here on out as quickly as possible so that i may do with my income as i wish.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
J. Murphy,
I’m not sure exactlyhow Bob Barr plans to work on Social security, the exact steps I don’t know… but at least he is willing to tackle the issue head on.. I’m tired of McCain & Obama dancing around the issue without addressing it.