The Denver Post has a great
story somewhat critical of Bush's Social Security "reform". More proof that his plan isn't going to fly in the West.
Some tidbits:
"You hope to retire at 65, in 2046. If the system were solvent, you could expect to collect about $20,500 that year in Social Security benefits under current law.
Your parents' generation is retiring first, and they and their fellow baby boomers are going to eat up all of the savings in the Social Security trust funds. Without those savings, Social Security trustees can pay out only what they take in each year.
Fortunately, there will still be tens of millions of workers paying Social Security taxes. Your papa is exaggerating, to put it politely, when he goes around the country calling the system 'bankrupt.'
If Congress does nothing, the $20,500 you expect to receive will shrink to $19,700, according to experts at the Congressional Budget Office."
On the private accounts:
"If you do invest wisely - the conservative CBO assumes the rate of return on your investment will be 3.3 percent or better - the combined benefit you will collect at 65 (from Social Security and your personal account) will be $14,300.
To sum up: You would get $20,500 that first year if the current law is patched up, and $19,700 if Congress does nothing. And $14,300 under your dad's proposal."
Why would Jenna or my generation risk this? I mean, I would rather have a guaranteed $19,700 than $14,300. My generation shouldn't buy into this, and neither should anyone else.