The Times has a very
irritating article on the Social Security Trust Fund. Apparently, its all a big misunderstanding--the government doesn't really owe that money. The silly Democrats seem to think U.S. government bonds represent some sort of promise to pay money. Actually bonds are just a statement that it would be nice if the government paid you back someday, but it doesn't have to (gotta read the fine print). Doesn't that make bonds look like an attractive investment? The worst part is, they quote someone from the AARP who agrees that the Trust Fund is not real.
Its importance, said John C. Rother, the policy director of AARP, the advocacy group for older Americans, is largely symbolic. "It is a symbol of the insurance nature of the program and the social contract that lies behind it," Mr. Rother said. "But it doesn't really bind the Congress," he said, and "no individual's benefits are insured by it."
[Update]: Here is the contact page for the
AARP. Let them know what you think. There is some good info to send them in the comments.
Isn't it nice when people trying to save Social Security are willing to make the opposition's argument for them? That really saves everybody a lot of work. Thats why the Liebermans and the Froms of the world are such valuable time savers. If you can find a Democrate to make the Republican arguement, you really have saved everyone a lot of work. Now why exactly do you never see Republicans making the Democratic argument? Oh yeah, because they play to
win.
This is inexcusable. Shame on John Rother and shame on the Times for running such a hack article. If the Trust fund is not, in fact, an obligation to fund Social Security, why was it ever set up? When people's payments go into the Trust fund, don't you think they should know that the money is just going into a general slush fund and really has nothing to do with Social Security? Its total BS. The Trust Fund is real. US government bonds are real. Ask George Bush--he owns a bunch of them.