<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Book Does not Provide Adequate Answers to the SS Issue
Review: Although the notion of an objective, unbiased source for Social Security information is welcome and even encouraged, Arthur Benavie's "Social Security Under the Gun" does not meet that test. It is clear from the beginning, despite Mr. Benavie's contention that he does not want to steer the debate in a particular direction, that he has something against the notion of allowing younger workers to devote a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts. There are a lot of frivolous objections that Mr. Benavie makes. One of the most eggregious objections is the notion that privatizing Social Security would abridge our collective social contract to establish this particular social program. This is complete nonsense. No one in their right mind would even know what he is talking about. Although Social Security has been around for 68 years, people do not have this notion of their being involved in a "social contract" with their other fellow citizens. I fail to see how privitizing Social Security would result in people feeling more disconnected from one another. In fact, I see just the opposite. I notice, for instance, that in my own investing, I often think of myself as an integral member of our system, part of the corporate network with fluctuating stock and bond prices. When working, I really do not see how I am connected to others when I see my wages deducted to pay for Social Security, for instance. I see a greater connection with stocks and bonds, however. Mr. Benavie appears to believe that Americans ought to be forced to do particular things because, according to his elitist, intellectual view, Americans are either too incompetent or too stupid to save enough for their own retirement. Such a view is quite condescending and is an insult to the remarkable intelligence of the American public. Mr. Benavie also has a hard time arguing against allowing individual investors to invest in private accounts. He argues that stock investing is risky. So? This does not serve as a good reason to ban citizens from partaking in so-called "risky" behavior, especially if doing so is a way of decreasing the burden on the Social Security system in the years to come. He fails to mention, of course, that over the long run, for an extended period of time, stocks and bonds will yield much higher growth yields than Social Security. A younger worker putting money away now, in a mutual fund, for instance, will have a substantial amount of wealth by the time they retire. What is Benavie's answer to Social Security? More taxes and fewer benefits. Well, that's a typical liberal elitist -- Democratic answer. And I'm not going to tolerate it. Neither should any reader. This is book is not worth reading because it does not advance any new discussions or ideas on Social Security than those already discussed. It also does not go into much depth into the history or the workings of Social Security today. And that's the way it is. - Michael Gordon
Los Angeles
Rating:
Summary: The Book Does not Provide Adequate Answers to the SS Issue
Review: Although the notion of an objective, unbiased source for Social Security information is welcome and even encouraged, Arthur Benavie's "Social Security Under the Gun" does not meet that test. It is clear from the beginning, despite Mr. Benavie's contention that he does not want to steer the debate in a particular direction, that he has something against the notion of allowing younger workers to devote a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts. There are a lot of frivolous objections that Mr. Benavie makes. One of the most eggregious objections is the notion that privatizing Social Security would abridge our collective social contract to establish this particular social program. This is complete nonsense. No one in their right mind would even know what he is talking about. Although Social Security has been around for 68 years, people do not have this notion of their being involved in a "social contract" with their other fellow citizens. I fail to see how privitizing Social Security would result in people feeling more disconnected from one another. In fact, I see just the opposite. I notice, for instance, that in my own investing, I often think of myself as an integral member of our system, part of the corporate network with fluctuating stock and bond prices. When working, I really do not see how I am connected to others when I see my wages deducted to pay for Social Security, for instance. I see a greater connection with stocks and bonds, however. Mr. Benavie appears to believe that Americans ought to be forced to do particular things because, according to his elitist, intellectual view, Americans are either too incompetent or too stupid to save enough for their own retirement. Such a view is quite condescending and is an insult to the remarkable intelligence of the American public. Mr. Benavie also has a hard time arguing against allowing individual investors to invest in private accounts. He argues that stock investing is risky. So? This does not serve as a good reason to ban citizens from partaking in so-called "risky" behavior, especially if doing so is a way of decreasing the burden on the Social Security system in the years to come. He fails to mention, of course, that over the long run, for an extended period of time, stocks and bonds will yield much higher growth yields than Social Security. A younger worker putting money away now, in a mutual fund, for instance, will have a substantial amount of wealth by the time they retire. What is Benavie's answer to Social Security? More taxes and fewer benefits. Well, that's a typical liberal elitist -- Democratic answer. And I'm not going to tolerate it. Neither should any reader. This is book is not worth reading because it does not advance any new discussions or ideas on Social Security than those already discussed. It also does not go into much depth into the history or the workings of Social Security today. And that's the way it is. - Michael Gordon
Los Angeles
Rating: 
Summary: Clear, concise, objective analysis
Review: If you want to understand how social security works, what its problems are, and the major proposals for fixing it, read this book. It is rare to find such a clear and concise analysis of an important public policy issue.
The author explains objectively the alternative proposals for social security reform and their consequences, so readers can decide for themselves. He clarifies issues often muddied by political rhetoric and superficial media converage.
The main text is only 102 pages, with 40 pages of notes, references and index for those who wish to explore further.
Rating: 
Summary: No Balanced Approach In This Book
Review: In the Introduction, Arthur Benavie tries very hard to make the case that this book offers a fair and balanced analysis of Social Security reform. It does not.
Chapters 1 and 2 are designed to present the cases for and against privatization of Social Security. In Chapter 1 (Fixing Social Security) he presents the case for saving the system through a long list of tax increases and benefit reductions. The opposing side of the argument is not presented at all.
In Chapter 2 (Should We Privatize Social Security?), he starts out by presenting as many cons as he does pros for the privatization point of view. For every item he describes what the supporters of privatization espouse, he provides a rapid response in attempt to discredit the idea. By dedicating one chapter each to the "higher taxes/lower benefits" and the "privatization" viewpoints, he must think he is being "balanced".
Bottom line...this book is advertised as a balanced analysis of Social Security reform. But it comes down clearly on the side of being against any reform designed to privatize a portion of Social Security.
This may be a good book for you if you want to read an author make the case against privatization of Social Security. If you want to truely understand the trade-offs associated with privatization, this book will be a big letdown.
Rating: 
Summary: EXPLORING A SUBJECT WE ALL NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT
Review: Regardless of where you stand on the issue of Social Security,
this is a book you should read. Arthur Benavie presents the pros and cons of the various proposals to "fix" social security. The author begins the book by stating that he intended to make a fair and balanced presentation of the issues. This was not quiet the case. From the start he clearly comes down against the idea of privatization and diversification. Before reading this book, I tended to side with those who favored at least some privatization. Benavie certainly presented me with enough compelling reasons to rethink my position. In fact, I would now tend to oppose major changes to the social security program but I need to read more. The book is just 102 pages long and is a fairly easy read.
Rating:
Summary: Social Security Under the Gun:
Review: The amazing thing about this little book is that it's such a quick, easy read, and yet I feel I've absorbed so much crucial information about "reforming" Social Security. I started out thinking privatization might be a good idea. By the end I was convinced it would be a disaster. Yet Benavie's tone is calm and non-hysterical, If all economists could write as clearly as he does, it would be a lot easier to keep informed on vital issues like this one.
Rating:
Summary: Social Security Under the Gun:
Review: The amazing thing about this little book is that it's such a quick, easy read, and yet I feel I've absorbed so much crucial information about "reforming" Social Security. I started out thinking privatization might be a good idea. By the end I was convinced it would be a disaster. Yet Benavie's tone is calm and non-hysterical, If all economists could write as clearly as he does, it would be a lot easier to keep informed on vital issues like this one.
<< 1 >>
| 
