The Public Trust in Private Hands: Social Security and the Politics of Government Investment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The funding crisis facing Social Security could be dramatically reduced if the $1.9 trillion accumulating in the Trust Fund were put into a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds and other assets instead of the low yield U.S. Treasury certificates in which the Fund is currently invested. While the long term economic benefits of a diversified portfolio are largely undisputed, politicians cannot agree on whether the government or private individuals should make the investment decision. Republicans and Libertarians are philosophically opposed to government investment because of legitimate fears that politicians will interfere in corporate governance and steer money into investments that serve special interests. One reason Republicans advanced personal accounts as a solution to the funding crisis was because individual taxpayers, rather than the government, would make the investment decision. However, for a variety of reasons, the Republican personal accounts proposals are politically infeasible, and with time running out, a different strategy to leverage the private markets is needed. Another solution to the problems posed by government investment would be to create a federal government corporation (FGC) as an investment vehicle for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Historically, FGCs have played an important role in managing the nation's financial interests. Using an FGC as the investment arm for the SSA would distance the Fund from political influence so that professional investment advisors could make decisions based on wealth maximization rather than political influence. The solution has precedent in other countries. The Canadian government shifted its social insurance fund to a federal Crown corporation in 1997. The Crown corporation has not only remained politically neutral, it has also earned a higher rate of return than previous investments in government bonds. However, U.S. legal scholars question the legitimacy, accountability and transparency of American FGCs. Given the uncertain nature of the state action doctrine, it is not always clear whether an FGC is a state actor and therefore needs to comport with U.S. constitutional requirements as well as be subject to legislation governing federal agencies. This article explores the theoretical, constitutional and legal ramifications of creating a federal government corporation for the purpose of investing the $1.9 trillion Social Security Trust Fund in higher yield securities. The article concludes that not only can such an entity be consistent with democratic principles, it may be the best chance U.S. lawmakers have to address Social Security's funding crisis while mitigating anticipated tax increases and benefit cuts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».