Thursday, February 10, 2005

A letter to the editor in today's Post-Dispatch nails a point that has irresponsibly overlooked.
It doesn't add up

A Feb. 8 headline says that "Bush budget forecasts 3.6% growth" in the economy for the next fiscal year. His projections for the Social Security shortfall use an annual economic growth rate of 1.9 percent. What happens to the Social Security shortfall if the 3.6 percent growth rate is projected? What happens to the budget if the 1.9 percent growth rate is used?

What is the rationale for projecting different growth rates?

Gale Murphy
This is exactly the question that should be asked not only of the President, but of the Republican's that have come out in favor of phasing out social security. Make no mistake, creating private accounts out of social security eliminates the system. Period. Investing some of the social security fund in stocks instead of bonds is a whole different issue.

The President and his proxies use bad math to try and bamboozle the public on this issue. They are hoping that most people will simply say, "it's too hard to keep up." The simple matter of fact is, if the economy does well enough to actually make investing the money into stocks, then it will be growing enough to keep social security in the black.

The question of whether it matters if social security runs at a deficit is a whole other matter. This same President who argues that running a program with debt is also arguing that deficits do not matter. Which is it?

The entire government is running in the red and has been for years. Should we eliminate government too?

No comments: