WP: Report Denies (Social Security) Privatization (Wall Street) Windfall

Report Denies Privatization Windfall

By Ben White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 10, 2004; Page E01


NEW YORK, Dec. 9 -- Opponents of creating private accounts under Social Security often argue that the primary beneficiaries would be Wall Street investment firms. Wall Street's main trade group on Thursday said it isn't so.

The Securities Industry Association said in a report that partial privatization under scenarios being considered could generate as little as $39 billion for investment firms over the next 75 years and no more than $279 billion....

***

The report appeared to be a direct rebuttal to a study published in September in which University of Chicago business school professor Austan Goolsbee predicted Wall Street could collect $940 billion or more over 75 years, an amount he called the largest windfall in American financial history.

Privatization opponents quickly seized on Goolsbee's findings. Democrats, including then-presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), said the report proved that President Bush was pushing privatization to please Wall Street donors, who contributed generously to his campaign.

The SIA argued in its report that Goolsbee exaggerated the fees that investment firms would collect and overestimated the number of people who would choose to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes to private accounts....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53665-2004Dec9.html?sub=AR

anonymous Swiss bank accounts. Monies never to be seen again by hopeful Social Security recipients. The word "suckers" comes to mind. How could anyone trust their retirement to the same people who brought you BCCI, and the Halliburton missing billions?

I see no reason to question him.

would be the Bush cronies. Get ahold of all that Social Security $$$ and you've got a scandal that would make Enron pale in comparison.

well, that settles it -- that's just not enough money for these guys -- i mean really.

This rape of Social Security is Bonnie & Clyde in reverse!

The source is not the WSJ, but what I think you customarily call the "Whoreshington Post."

:)

It's a reasonably balanced article, which also quotes those who disagree with the assessment of "only 239 billion."