About the Project | Contact Us | Search

cato.org
Its Your Money, Your Choice, Your Future
Cato Institute
Project on Social Security Choice Project on Social Security Choice

Reform and YOU
Social Security Toolkit

Cato's Plan
Get Involved
Press Room
Congressional Corner


Join Us in our efforts —
we need your support.

Donate Today!
 

An increasingly popular theme...

December 19, 1998

An increasingly popular theme among die-hard defenders of the current Social Security system is that it doesn't really face a funding crisis after all. Projections of economic growth used by the Social Security Advisory Commission are too low, they contend, and if it's just a bit higher, things will be fine. It's the position taken by Business Week a few weeks ago, for example. In a forthcoming op-ed piece, Cato Institute Chairman William Niskanen, a former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, begs to differ. Here's a short excerpt:

"There is no way to insulate Social Security from the huge looming change in demographic conditions without major changes in the benefit structure. Increased economic growth is possible and desirable but would not be enough."

2001 Index | 2000 Index | 1999 Index | 1998 Index





Printer Friendly Version


  Quick Facts Archive  
  A medium income worker born after 1965 can expect a rate-of-return of less than 2% on his or her Social Security taxes.
[Details...]
 
Research Corner
 

BROWSE BY TOPIC

Social Security's Financial Crisis
Rate of Return Issues
Women, Minorities, and the Poor
Other Reasons for Social Security Reform
Government Investment of Social Security
Social Security Reform Plans
International Pension Reform
Transition Financing
Problems and Criticisms
Public Opinion and Polling

BROWSE BY AUTHOR Go

BROWSE BY TYPE Go

 
 

"And there are more ideas-driven initiatives to come, including the partial privatization of Social Security, an issue that would still be unthinkable were it not for the relentless agitation of places like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute."

- The Economist
February 10, 2001