- The Washington Times - Saturday, March 19, 2005

A good actor can take someone else’s words and make them believable. A good columnist can, too.

Recently, syndicated columnist Michael Kinsley latched on to an idea first floated by actor Rob Reiner. The two men want to prove personal retirement accounts (PRAs) for Social Security cannot work. But their arguments are simply wrong.

Mr. Kinsley and Mr. Reiner claim there is no way a conservative portfolio of stocks and bonds can grow an average 4.7 percent annually (after inflation) if the economy grows as slowly as Social Security actuaries predict. That 4.7 percent return is important; it’s what the Heritage Foundation estimates a PRA would earn after inflation. Although Mr. Kinsley didn’t mention it, our prediction is based on a portfolio that consists of 50 percent stock index funds and 50 percent government bonds.

Such a return is possible and even likely. A new London Business School study shows stock market returns are higher on average in slower-growing economies than in those growing rapidly. The study found investors earned 12 percent a year buying in down markets and only 6 percent when market growth was in the top 20 percent.

Just three days before Mr. Kinsley’s column was published, Stephen C. Goss, the nonpartisan Social Security chief actuary, used precisely the economic assumptions criticized by Mr. Kinsley to project that over the next 75 years, “the long-term ultimate average annual real yield assumed for equities [stocks] is 6 percent.” Congressional Budget Office estimates echo Mr. Goss’ numbers.

Messrs. Kinsley and Reiner also claim that if the economy grows faster than the actuaries predict, Social Security’s problems will be solved without personal accounts.

But several studies, including data from nonpartisan Social Security actuaries, show there is virtually no chance faster economic growth could solve Social Security’s coming huge deficits, but, in fact, would worsen the problem.

Yes, higher earnings would increase the short-term Social Security payroll tax collection. But as benefits are linked to wages, they also would raise retirement benefits to be paid.

The actuaries do admit there is a 2 percent chance the economy could grow fast enough to solve Social Security’s problems. Of course that also means there is a 97 percent chance that it won’t. It certainly doesn’t make sense to gamble our children’s retirement security on such odds.

Most disturbingly, Mr. Kinsley also writes: “But if free markets work the way they are supposed to — and I would like to hear The Heritage Foundation say that they do not — the effect of the government’s announcing that government bonds are a bad investment and officially pushing people to put their money elsewhere will be to make it more expensive for the government to borrow money. So even if private stocks and bonds are a better long-term investment than government bonds (after factoring in risk and so on), they won’t stay that way for long.” This makes little sense.

No one is saying real government bonds (as opposed to the non-negotiable “bonds” that substitute for real assets in the Social Security trust fund) are a bad investment. Our projections, as noted above, are based on PRAs 50 percent invested in government bonds. The Bush proposal assumes 20 percent of PRAs are invested in government bonds. Government bonds are a fine investment for people who want to avoid risk and can afford the lower returns paid by government bonds.

On the other hand, stocks and other types of bonds pay a higher return partly because they involve greater risk. Stocks and bonds rise and fall by the day, week and month. However, over long periods such as 20 years or more, they almost always rise at a significant annual average rate.

This is what makes stocks and bonds perfect for retirement investing. Holding them for 20-plus years virtually guarantees significant profits at a fairly low risk.

A system of PRAs would increase demand for both stocks and government bonds. There is no reason to assume demand for either will fall or that the risk-based difference between what each pays will change significantly from the SSA or CBO projections.

We can have personal accounts that allow individuals to build retirement nest eggs they will own and control. In fact, such accounts are the only proposal on the table that can preserve Social Security for decades to come. The time to act is now.

David C. John is a Social Security research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide