Government By Nanny
To The Editor:

It is an election year and the presidential candidates are promising all things to all people and sound like they are running for "nanny-in-chief". The government produces nothing, so whatever it promises, it must take from someone else. The simplest and clearest illustration of this principle at work is the Social Security system. It is a tax and spend scheme whereby current recipients are paid with money collected from current workers. There is no fund for savings and investments. In 1950, 16 workers provided benefits for each retiree. In 1996, the ratio was 3.3 to 1 and the projection for 2030 is less than 2 to 1. Would you choose such a plan, if you had a choice?

We are denied a choice even though there is incontrovertible evidence that alternative retirement accounts yield substantially higher benefits. Before Congress closed a loophole in 1983 that municipal governments could opt out of the Social Security system, three Texas counties, including Galveston, opted out and the results are worth pondering. Danny Brooks in The Observer reports a retired $20,000 per year worker has a personal account of $383,000 and receives $2,740 per month compared with SS income of $775; a $50,000 per year worker has a personal account of $956,303 and receives $6,843 per month compared with SS income of $1,302. Since the retirees own their account[s], they could opt for a lump sum or choose from several annuities.

When will the government stop confiscating our retirement money and restore our freedom to make choices, invest and accumulate an estate for our heirs?

After all, it is our money. Ed Konecnik Flushing