Bone Scan / The Social Security Issue. Again.

Today I visited Deaconess Hospital to get my left femur checked. I got shot up with this radioactive fluid stuff at 9 and then I went back in to get scanned at 12:30 once the fluid was flowing through my bones. Once scanned, the middle of my left femur appeared to glow light gray on the computer monitor, indicating a minor stress fracture. So, I do have a stress fracture, but I will not know how long I'll be out until tomorrow.

The only good news of the day: I read the entire current issue of Time while I waited for the bone scan. There were a number of interesting articles, including one on Bush's plan for Social Security. However, I was somewhat disappointed with the article. Although it offered both the conservative and liberal viewpoints for what effect it would have on the budget, the authors seemed to be somewhat bias and/or unknowledgeable on the matter of the percent of return under a privatized system. Their model only offers figures from a liberal think tank, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who predict a maximum return of 4.5%. But, as explained in the link above, Donald Luskin believes it's possible for maximum returns of 6%, conservatively speaking. Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, a respected libertarian think tank, suggests that private accounts would continue to pay more (see Figure 3) than our current system even if the market drops. His findings crush the argument about privatization's supposed instability.

USI's College Democrats vice-president offered an interesting opinion on the matter last Friday while debating with him, that being that "with certain reforms to the current system, we could have a successful Social Security program again." I found it ironic that a Democrat was talking about Social Security reform when the Dems had already done so much in the past 50 years, most of it leading to the current system's upcoming failure. Maybe he is right, maybe current system could be reverted back to its original intent. But, I believe that the system is too easily corrupted, very inefficient, and violates the citizen's right to control over his/her income. Moreover, the payroll tax, the means for financing the current social security system is extremely high: 6.2% for employers and employees. What's worse is the affect it has on discouraging new small businesses, as the self-employed pay 12.4% into the system. If the American people having 6-12% of their income taken away from them, the people should at least decide what is going to be done with the money. Every citizen should also get more money back than they originally put it in. Regardless of what Paul Krugman might say, privatization will meet both of these requirements, something our current system fails to accomplish. ~ Rich