"However, the Administration's plan to privatize Social Security will undermine retirement security for all Americans by cutting guaranteed benefits by more than 40 percent, and risky private accounts won't make up for the loss of benefits for millions of Americans"
About this Quote
Ruben Hinojosa warns that shifting Social Security toward private accounts erodes the core promise of the program: a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted benefit that is not tied to market luck. The language is stark, invoking a more than 40 percent cut to scheduled benefits and casting private accounts as risky substitutes that would fail millions. The argument rests on the distinction between social insurance and individualized investing. Social Security pools risk across generations and lifetimes, protecting against longevity, disability, and widowhood. Privatization proposals, particularly those championed during the Bush Administration in the mid-2000s, would have diverted payroll taxes into personal accounts and offset those diversions with lower guaranteed benefits, shifting market and longevity risks onto individuals.
The 40 percent figure reflects critics calculations that, relative to current-law promises, benefit reductions plus a clawback for funds diverted to private accounts would leave many retirees with substantially less. Supporters claimed market returns could fill the gap, but that presumes decades of steady growth, low fees, and disciplined investment behavior, all of which are uncertain. Hinojosa stresses that the guarantee is not easily replaced: when markets fall, retirees cannot simply delay aging or pause rent. The experience of the early 2000s tech bust and the collapse of firms like Enron had already shown how quickly private retirement wealth can evaporate.
The phrase all Americans underscores Social Securitys universal design. Even higher earners with other assets rely on the programs survivor and disability benefits, and middle- and lower-income workers depend on its progressive formula most. Privatization would also entail large transition costs, requiring trillions in borrowing to keep paying current beneficiaries while payroll taxes are redirected to private accounts. Hinojosa frames the debate as a choice about the social contract: retain a stable, shared foundation of retirement security, or replace it with individualized exposure to market swings and reduced guarantees. His contention is that the tradeoff is not neutral and that the loss of certainty would be both widespread and hard to recover.
The 40 percent figure reflects critics calculations that, relative to current-law promises, benefit reductions plus a clawback for funds diverted to private accounts would leave many retirees with substantially less. Supporters claimed market returns could fill the gap, but that presumes decades of steady growth, low fees, and disciplined investment behavior, all of which are uncertain. Hinojosa stresses that the guarantee is not easily replaced: when markets fall, retirees cannot simply delay aging or pause rent. The experience of the early 2000s tech bust and the collapse of firms like Enron had already shown how quickly private retirement wealth can evaporate.
The phrase all Americans underscores Social Securitys universal design. Even higher earners with other assets rely on the programs survivor and disability benefits, and middle- and lower-income workers depend on its progressive formula most. Privatization would also entail large transition costs, requiring trillions in borrowing to keep paying current beneficiaries while payroll taxes are redirected to private accounts. Hinojosa frames the debate as a choice about the social contract: retain a stable, shared foundation of retirement security, or replace it with individualized exposure to market swings and reduced guarantees. His contention is that the tradeoff is not neutral and that the loss of certainty would be both widespread and hard to recover.
Quote Details
| Topic | Retirement |
|---|
More Quotes by Ruben
Add to List
