As one of the unfortunate household casualties of the current contract imbroglio between East Coast cable and professional sports titan Cablevision and FOX Network, I've resigned myself to the inevitable fact that I'll not only miss all my beloved Giants' games for the foreseeable future, but the World Series and "House" as well.
So for comic relief, I became one of the three or four viewers according to Nielsen that tuned into MSNBC. One show of whom I will, out of decorum, leave out the host's name (hint: the person has a Ph.D from Oxford and in my opinion, a G.E.D. in most economic matters) the subject of privatized Social Security was brought up in an interview with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski.
Murkowski, she of the school of "I was for it but now I'm against it," sided with President George W.Bush in what seems like an eternity ago when he first proposed privatizing Social Security but apparently has since reconsidered her position.
An oversimplification of the Bush plan, which died a rather quick death, would allow workers to save and invest some of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts.
The duo maintained that many retirees were either not savvy enough, nor wanted to be bothered with monitoring their Social Security investments.
Okay, to be fair, that would probably ring true in some cases (in full disclosure I have someone managing my investments).
Back in August, President Obama chided the plan because it entailed workers "tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders," and the cyclical swings of the market.
But what some have correctly pointed out and the president conveniently left out is that the workers had an option to stay with Social Security or opt for the personal accounts. In addition, the personal investment options were hardly limited to securities, but other vehicles as well including CDs, bonds or index funds.
As I wrote in my online missive last week about the proposed Government Retirement Fund which guarantees a 3 percent return, if you left the same amount of money in the stock market if would have generated 350 percent more than this nightmare in waiting.
With regard to Social Security, had a retired worker earned a 6 percent to 7 percent return during a 40-plus year career, he/she would have generated anywhere from 70-80 percent more than under Social Security.
And as I advocated last week, I'll take my chances with the markets as opposed to the government.
I hope Cablevision and FOX resolve their dispute soon. I've already missed a pair of Giants games and two episodes of "House."
On the other hand, think of the endless columns that MSNBC could generate.
