Nate Perkins wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote in
:

Nate Perkins wrote:

The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his
plan will cause more harm than good.

In what way(s)?


It's the wrong direction because it increases the deficit, and in the short
term the deficit is a far more pressing problem than is social security.
Borrowing more money (a couple trillion) to finance the parallel
privatization plan is risky because it increases the risk that foreign
debtors will decrease confidence in our committment to fiscal discipline.
There are a host of other problems as well: inconsistent projection basis
for SS solvency vs privatization returns, unlikely projection of future
stock values based on recent historical values, and erosion of return
differences due to administrative fees.

Privatizers like to accurately point out that SS revenues/expenditures are
not practically separate from the general federal revenues/expenditures.
With that being true, then the best thing to do to ease multiple problems
is to restore fiscal discipline.

That's what I figured you were going after...

What's wrong w/ the direction, not what's wrong w/ details of how to
implement a change in direction?

That's what bugs me about the whole debate--it's a ****ing contest
between two extremes with neither taking the time nor effort to consider
a combination of changes. My contention is the idea of increasing
personal stake in one's own retirement is almost mandatory while
retaining commitments made to those close enough to retirement that it
is only responsible to maintain those within reason. News organizations
only exacerbate the problem as their primary purpose seems to be to
foment dissension to sell headlines. If you listened to Greenspan the
other day, you would get a feel for what could realistically be done.

The real problem is the other out-of-control entitlement spending
(MediCare, MedicAid, etc.) that both political parties are almost
equally responsible for.