Among Bush’s many defeats we must include the proposal to “privatize” Social Security—a cockamamie and deliberately foggy scheme that tried to pass itself off as increased choice but upon close inspection revealed itself to be nothing more than a scheme of forced savings and socialized investment. Yes, it was to be “pay as you go” in contrast to the present system of debt finance but this hardly matters from the individual’s point of view. During the transition period (schedule to last a merely 30 or so years), you were to pay twice: once for the public system and once for the “private” system, whether you want to or not. This, we were told, would “save” the system.
With this plot now bust, perhaps the debate can get back to the fundamentals again: namely whether it makes good economic and moral sense for the federal government to be managing your savings habits at all. If the answer is no, what is to be done? George Reisman’s proposal seems very interesting. Added to this mix is the “opt out” program being pushed by Kyle Markley. His very good round up makes a strong case against SocSec but it doesn’t include enough details about the fiscal impact of opting out. What kind of liabilities would remain in the system? What is to be done about them? These questions don’t appear to be answered in his essay. Tell us more Kyle!
