We should invest a fraction of the Social Security Trust Fund
Published: Monday, January 17, 2005 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, January 16, 2005 at 9:42 p.m.
In The Sun's Jan. 8 "Point-Counterpoint" columns about Social Security, both writers agree that investing for the future is basically a good idea. The major disagreement is that investing for a guaranteed pension amount is oxymoronic.
If investing is a good idea, why doesn't the Social Security Administration do it, rather than leave it to millions of individuals and thousands of investment companies?
Insurance companies can, and do, guarantee life policy payouts as well as annuities because they apply well-established guidelines to life-span projections on the one hand and fiscally sound investing on the other.
Large pension funds also successfully manage huge amounts of funds using similar disciplines in projections and diversified investments.
Large-scale, systematic investing has been working for a long time for countless organizations and their recipients. So, shouldn't it work as well for Social Security? Wouldn't it be more prudent to place such responsibility with a small cadre of highly trained professionals instead of suddenly thrusting millions of untrained individuals into a position of having to chart their way through a financial minefield, with only their broker or insurance agent to guide them?
Of the billions now present in the Social Security Trust Fund, why not divert a small fraction into investments that could bolster our economy and add more people to the work force? The success of those investments could improve the longevity of the fund while furthering the inherent desire of all concerned to have a vibrant cohesion of economy, industry and work force.
J. P. Robinson,
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article