The House Republican leadership plan would devote all Social Security payroll tax surpluses as well as a portion of projected on-budget surpluses to debt reduction. “If we eliminate this debt, that money can be freed up for use on other priorities like tax relief, investing in our schools, or fortifying our national debt,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Retiring public debt is good, all other things being equal. But all other things aren’t equal. Policy-makers must consider the competing uses for budget surpluses — the “opportunity cost,” in econo-speak. And three good reasons point to why projected surpluses should go to establishing personal retirement accounts.
- A true lock box: Debt repayment today reduces interest costs in
the future, freeing resources for other purposes. But who’s to say
that those resources will go to Social Security rather than to
mohair subsidies, caffeinated chewing gum or whatever else a future
Congress decides to spend it on? Personal retirement accounts give
workers the security of knowing that their retirement incomes won’t
be competing against other government spending priorities. And
good-government types will know that we’re not making sacrifices
today only to finance more waste tomorrow.
- A better deal: It’s not smart to pre-pay a low-interest loan
when you could place that money in a high-returning investment
instead. Yet that’s exactly what retiring public debt does.
Marketable public debt carries an average interest rate of 6.4
percent, while stock returns over the past 75 years averaged 10.3
percent (both figures include inflation). If $3.6 trillion in
budget surpluses were invested in the market through personal
accounts, the 3.9 percentage point spread between interest and
returns would add hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the Baby
- A new investor class: Middle- and upper-class workers invest, but high payroll taxes shut low-income workers out of rising stock markets. The result: increased income inequality. Meanwhile, low-income workers’ almost total dependence on Social Security means they will be hit hardest by its insolvency. Personal retirement accounts could create a new class of low-income millionaires with vested interests in free markets and economic growth. And those new investors would see their retirement security linked to real assets under their ownership and control, not to promises from politicians who will be long out of office when the bills come due.
Now, many supply-side conservatives would rather use budget surpluses for income and capital gains tax cuts. But those tax cuts would not do nearly as much as would personal retirement accounts to promote long-term economic growth, prepare for the fiscal crunch of Baby Boom retirements or expand the capital-owning class in America. Personal retirement accounts are a tax cut targeted at the least advantaged, dedicated to investment and reserved for retirement.
Polls show that the public knows what Congress and the president don’t: that personal retirement accounts should trump debt reduction. An October ABC/Washington Post poll found that 29 percent of respondents favored devoting budget surpluses to Social Security; only 19 percent wanted to reduce the debt. And a recent Gallup Poll found 62 percent support for personal accounts in Social Security, with only 33 percent opposed. If for that reason only, Congress should make Social Security reform featuring personal accounts the first fiscal priority in a post-deficit economy.