http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=66&ncid=749&e=11&u=/bw/20040826/bs_bw/nf200408267244db052Snow:"We'd Give People Choices"(choose to be screwed to benefit the rich)
Thu Aug 26, 8:20 AM ET
Q: Why is the time right for the sorts of reforms President Bush seeks to promote with his Ownership Society idea?
A: Twenty-five years ago, only a few people owned stock. Today 50% have some equity ownership. That's a healthy thing -- to have people get the benefit of returns to capital as well as returns to labor. The President's core idea is, give people more control over their own lives, empower them to take greater responsibility for their own retirements, health care, and economic security.
Q: In 2001, a Presidential commission offered three methods to replace part of Social Security with private retirement accounts. Does the President favor one?
A: The commission showed that personal accounts have a critically important role to play (in making Social Security solvent). We didn't choose among the three, nor do we endorse any one as the answer. The President wants to get a broad national dialogue going on securing the future of Social Security. Stay tuned: Social Security will continue to be a major issue on the President's mind.
Q: John Kerry has said he would keep today's Social Security system and that the President's approach is risky.
A: We'd give people choices. People are intelligent in the U.S.; they can make intelligent trade-offs. Personal accounts are consistent with the President's Ownership Society, where people take more responsibility for their own lives, for their health care, for their savings. And they'd have something. They get a stake in America.
Q: Are you worried about the $1 trillion or more needed to pay for the transition to private accounts?
A: It's got to be managed, it's got to be dealt with. Transition costs are about making explicit the costs (of unfunded future benefits) that are now implicit. Most economists will tell you that you do better when you make costs explicit rather than hidden and implicit, because that invites better behavior. You would have a somewhat higher explicit deficit. But markets look at the reality of things, not the appearances. It shouldn't have any significant effect on the borrowing costs of the U.S. It lowers future obligations so the future debt and future deficit levels come down as we finance our way to this more attractive and more solvent long-term (system). (and if you believe this the 2nd term will be fun!)<snip>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
