Can't manage your money?

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Finally, after suffering through months of demagoguery from Social Security reform opponents, we're beginning to see their true motivation:

You're just too stupid to manage your own money.

Sure, some opponents have tried to hide their true feelings behind phony arguments like transition costs, supposed benefit "cuts" and talk of Vegas slot machines. But in the last few weeks, we have seen a handful of honest opponents boldly say in public what many less straightforward opponents probably only say when they get together privately.

"Are Americans smart enough to manage their own retirement savings?" columnist Froma Harrop asked Tuesday in the Christian Science Monitor. "No, as a matter of fact, they're not. Americans are amazingly dumb about investing," she said.

In an attempt to boost her case, Miss Harrop cites a mechanic friend who was bilked out of a large sum of money by a con man, corporate employees who only invest in company stocks like Enron, and homeowners who have seen the values of their homes skyrocket in recent years but are apparently now too stupid to realize the real-estate market's about to come crashing down around them like a house of cards.

In addition to the obvious flaw in Miss Harrop's core argument that Americans are too dumb to manage their own money, she also completely ignores the fact personal accounts proposed for Social Security would be extremely diversified in a wide variety bond funds and stock funds. No shysters on the telephone conning you out of your money. No heavy investment in a single stock like Enron. No housing market crash wiping out your life savings.

Miss Harrop's stated belief in the stupidity of everyday Americans comes just a few weeks after the New York Times ran an article by Eduardo Porter headlined, "When it comes to managing retirement, many people simply can't."

While Mr. Porter's article actually does note most people who have invested in 401(k)s or IRAs have done very well for themselves, the focus is on some people -- 15 percent by the Times' estimation -- have not exactly maximized their returns or made the correct investment decisions all the time.

The clear implication in the Times' headline, as in Miss Harrop's column, is that personal accounts are too "risky" because not every American has a Harvard MBA. That we must protect the unwashed masses from themselves before they ruin their lives or -- perish the thought -- prove free markets operate more efficiently than huge government bureaucracies. Please.

If Miss Harrop or the New York Times editors want to pass up the option to invest their Social Security taxes in personal accounts, that's fine. Personal accounts would be completely voluntary. If they want to bury their savings in the backyard or stuff extra cash in their mattresses, that's their prerogative.

But to argue that all American workers should be prohibited from investing part of our Social Security taxes in safe, diversified personal accounts because we don't all have Warren Buffett's investment track record is simply arrogant.

These supporters of cradle-to-grave government intervention love to piously talk about how much they care about the little guy... but how much do they really trust the little guy?

Ed Frank is communications director for Americans for Prosperity, which supports creating personal accounts in Social Security at www.socialsecurityforall.com.