Merrill Matthews makes a persuasive case for an opt-out approach to Social Security reform in the Wall Street Journal. Until 1983, municipal governments had the ability to opt out of Social Security and erect their own pension systems. As Merrill describes, in 1980, three Texas counties—Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda—did so:
Now, 30 years on, county workers in those three jurisdictions retire with more money and have better death and disability supplemental benefits. And those three counties—unlike almost all others in the United States—face no long-term unfunded pension liabilities.
Since 1981 and 1982, workers in Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria Counties have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. The so-called Alternate Plan of these three counties doesn’t follow the traditional defined-benefit or defined-contribution model. Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which originated the plan in 1980 and has managed it since its adoption. I call it a “banking model.”
County employees’ contributions to their pensions are identical to those of Social Security. However, because the pensions are managed by outside institutions, the counties face no unfunded liabilities:
As with Social Security, employees contribute 6.2% of their income, with the county matching the contribution (or, as in Galveston, providing a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done—that’s why there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level and goes higher when the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75% and 5.75% every year, with the average around 5%. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, of 6.5%-7%. When the market goes up, employees make more—and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
The “Alternate Plan” used in the three counties, like Social Security, also includes a death benefit, survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit, but pays out much more than traditional Social Security:
But not all money goes into employees’ retirement accounts. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1980, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund: It’s also social insurance that provides a death benefit ($255), survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy that pays four times the employee’s salary tax-free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
If a worker participating in Social Security dies before retirement, he loses his contribution (though part of that money might go to surviving children or a spouse who didn’t work). But a worker in the Alternate Plan owns his account, so the entire account belongs to his estate. There is also a disability benefit that pays immediately upon injury, rather than waiting six months plus other restrictions, as under Social Security.
Workers of all income levels, under the Alternate Plan, make around twice as much as they would make under traditional Social Security:
Those who retire under the Texas counties’ Alternate Plan do much better than those on Social Security. According to First Financial’s calculations, based on 40 years of contributions:
• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan.
• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security versus $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
The plan is extremely popular among its participants, with only 5 out of 1350 Galveston County workers choosing not to participate:
The Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would under Social Security. As Galveston County Judge Mark Henry says, “The plan works great. Anyone who spends a few minutes understanding the plan becomes a huge proponent.” Judge Henry says that out of 1,350 county employees, only five have chosen not to participate.
Based on current law, six million local and state employees could adopt the Texas system. However, thanks to the 1983 Social Security reforms signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the remaining 75% of public employees cannot. A simple place, therefore, to begin reforming Social Security might be to remove the 1983 prohibition against municipal opt-outs:
The Alternate Plan could be adopted today by the six million public employees in the U.S.—roughly 25% of the total—who are part of state and local government retirement plans that are outside of Social Security (and are facing serious unfunded liability problems). Unfortunately this option is available only to those six million public employees, since in 1983 Congress barred all others from leaving Social Security.
If Congress overrides this provision, however, the Alternate Plan could be a model for reforming Social Security nationally. After all, it provides all the social-insurance benefits of Social Security while avoiding the unfunded liabilities that are crippling the program and the economy.
Social Security isn’t nearly as big of a problem as Medicare and Medicaid are. Nonetheless, it would be nice to see more candidates, and especially Mitt Romney, offering detailed proposals for reform.
Just curious: Ferguson wrote about the Chilean experiment and how that had an incredible stimulus impact on the economy as well as "proved" the point regarding gov. vs. private retirement accounts. This article reinforves the distinction. Any current data re how the Chilean experiment has worked; since that is a larger real-life implementation of the same principle as outlined above?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBetter information from the IMF...
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Roy: Why did President Reagan do such a thing? His rhetoric was so conservative but not always his actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a more sober (though possibly less up-to-date) look at the Texas plans, see External Link
(GAO) and www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n1/v62n1p47.pdf (SSA).
Both are from 1999, so changes to the Texas plans may not be reflected here, but I'd wait until an update to these studies (or something similar) confirmed that the Texas plans really were doing so much better than SS.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe interim loss of revenue to SS caused by those opting for this type of private program to pay for current SS retirees can easily be obtained by eliminating the following programs:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse• Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
• Save America 's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
• International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.
• Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
• National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
• National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
• Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
• Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
• Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
• U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
• Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
• Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
• John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
• Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
• Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
• Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings
• Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
• Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
• Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
• Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
• Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
• Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
• New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
• Exchange Programs for Alaska , Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts .. $9 million annual savings
• Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
• Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
• Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
• Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
• Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
• Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
• FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
• Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
• Economic Assistance to Egypt . $250 million annually.
• U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
• General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual savings.
• Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
• Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
• No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
• End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
• Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
• IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
• Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
• Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of.. $15 billion total savings.
• Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
• Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
• Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings
• Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
• USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
• Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
• Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
• Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
• Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings..
• HUD Ph.D. Program.
• Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
• TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years