Help Me Out Here - The Ownership Society Part II
I'm all for the Ownership Society. It's a good thing for citizens to have a tangible stake in social order to go with the massive (but sometimes slippery) intangible stake we all share.
I am a member of the Baby Boom generation, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for coasting through my golden years on Social Security. No real complaints, though. It was a good idea when it was launched in the 1930s, and it has largely accomplished what its designers intended.
I like the idea that the government can encourage Americans to save for their retirement, and I certainly recognize that monies put into an index fund of stocks will yield much better returns than we can achieve with Social Security over 15 or 25 or 50 years. In short, private savings accounts to supplement Social Security are a good idea.
Now here is my problem: why does President Bush insist that the money for the private savings accounts has to come from the workers' pool of Social Security taxes? Why can't we just extend the limits of the IRA savings accounts?
How does it "save" Social Security to pull money out of the system?
Money is fungible - though there are distinctions beween pre-tax and post-tax dollars, I know. Nevertheless it does matter which fund or pool of money is designated as a source of the "private savings" account. As a political matter, what purpose is served by drawing from the Social Security pool instead of "cutting taxes" by using pre-tax, non-SocSec monies to fund this aspect of the Ownership society?
Looks to me like the President is just poking a stick in the eye of the Dems and inviting a fight on confusing ground.
So help me out here. Where am I wrong?