People paying into the Social Security system can expect about a 3% return on their money. That’s a poor return under anyone’s definition of an investment. Not only that but when the recipient dies, that’s the end of it. The family of the deceased gets nothing. President Bush wants to allow contributors to invest a portion of their money into private investments—mutual funds, stocks and bonds.  Long-term returns on these kinds of investments yield considerably more than 3%, and the investment income is the property of the contributor. It can be willed according to the owner’s wishes.  What’s wrong with that? Nothing, it’s a good idea, and one that has been in use elsewhere for many years.

 Democrats are against any reform of Social Security at least during a GOP administration. They are in lock-step on the issue and will not allow any changes period. So what could they possibly oppose in a plan that will net the public with more retirement money? Less control over them perhaps?

 They offer a number of reasons, most of which are specious. There are two main reasons. First, it is a Republican (Bush) plan. Democrats plan to obstruct everything that the President puts forward, no matter how sensible or necessary. They are apparently willing to gamble that the folks who voted them in will not vote them out as happened to Senator Daschle.

Another reason is because Social Security has always been a Democrat issue and they won't allow a Republican steal their baby. They quake at the mention of the sainted FDR, who hatched the scheme in the first place. A plague on anyone daring to fiddle with Roosevelt’s sacred legacy, even though it is obvious that it will collapse when its pay out exceeds its pay in. Even Franklin himself said that it would need to be supplemented.

Also, Social Security has always been something the Democrats can claim that those mean old Republicans are planning to take away from old people should they win the next election. They trot out this old canard at every opportunity. The idea is to scare those who depend on their government checks to continue voting for Democrats. This works well and they don’t want to lose it.

If Bush’s efforts to change Social Security fail because of Democrat “no-ism,” the issue still won’t go away. The idea of privatization is such a winner that it will be taken over by Democrats the next time they are in power.  Of course they will demand, and get, a tax increase in return.

I wrote a column similar to this several years ago, when the issue was on the front pages of major newspapers and a main item on TV news programs. The reason I’ve taken it up again is because it’s as true today as it was then and I’m a little tired of warning people about Obama and his socialist ideas.

 As predicted, the Bush Social Security Reform plan was quashed by the Democrats in congress and nothing further has been done. Nothing will be done either until it becomes a major crisis. By then, the advantages of long term investments will have been wasted and there will be no money in the treasury to meet the government’s social security obligations without further borrowing. Democrats know this but they’re hoping they’ll be able to blame the Republicans when their own malfeasance becomes obvious.

 This issue is not unlike the current energy crisis. Nothing has been done and even as crisis has set in, the Democrats running congress have turned out the lights and gone on vacation, rather than deal with a problem mostly of their own making, lest the GOP and the American people get something they desperately need—a respite from crushing fuel prices and the resulting inflation it has engendered.