Fidelity has recovered as well as the Teachers fund but Enron isn’t close to the invetments that would be allowed under private accounts.

We would start with the funds that the government is using right now to hold SS surpluses and then have a cap on the investment grade level of the fund choices.

As for private accounts – - – to me it goes against the idea of Social Security, as it’s a program that’s intended to be relied on by all Americans when and if they should need it.

Social Security isn’t going to be there when I need it, Clinton was the first, I think, to talk about this. It’s a huge unnecessary burden on the economy and tax base.

but if an investor in a Social Security program sees Adelphia on the list of investments – does it become a political issue then?

Only approved mutual funds would be allowed on the list. No day trading, no IPOs, no single companies or single industries. A well diversified portfolio with various levels of short term risk and locked in long term gains.

put on the fund managers

They would be heavily restricted if they existed at all.

Can our markets make good on that much more investment each pay cycle? Mutual funds have a hard enough time cutting a profit now…what happens when these mandatory investments are having to be made by fund managers – and the number of viable investments dry up?

Right now the vulture investing funds are doing the best – example of this was the investor who put money into Adelphia when it was trading at just over a dime a share, as it went over two bucks a little while ago – a private firm can invest in this way, but if an investor in a Social Security program sees Adelphia on the list of investments – does it become a political issue then?

All these things run through my mind, and the President hasn’t gotten that deep into HOW the money would be invested, and what controls would be in place or what restrictions would be put on the fund managers.

Who would manage the funds? That’s the big question. What kind of a contract would they be working under? How much influence would the government have in where their money was invested? When a fund the size of what these would be, decides to put a percentage of dollars in one sector of the economy, it can lead to problems most people never even think about.

My major concern right now is the accounting field, and the consolidation of accounting firms since Enron’s collapse. They’re driven by the bottom line, just like their clients are – and if there are only three out there, it’s a constant process where the bargaining for contracts involves how stringent one firm is going to be on a company’s books than their competitor.

I guess my main point is this – - – the situation with the markets and accounting aparatus in place today is weaker than it should be. The SEC has a new chief in place now who’s pro-business, so the oversite is going to be as lax as it could possibly be. Elliot Spitzer is doing their job down in NY…and one by one corporations are defaulting on their pension plans.

The idea right now should be to strengthen THIS system, and address Social Security down the road. Because while retirees are getting their government checks on time, there are plenty of folks out there who are only getting 40-60% of their retirement benefits from the private sector.

As for private accounts – - – to me it goes against the idea of Social Security, as it’s a program that’s intended to be relied on by all Americans when and if they should need it. If all the money goes into personal accounts, it defeats the purpose of why we have it in the first place.

Bush’s argument that the government would someday default on payments…that’s the one that hit me square in the forehead during his sales tour…for the President to say this is very curious. He’s basically saying that the organization he represents is not above telling every retired/disabled person in America to go pound sand…while the government spends their money on a missile defense shield.