FOUR QUESTIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE PALEO-LIBS

(1) Can LOW RISK bonds ever return more over time than HIGHER RISK STOCKS?

NO. So limiting the so-called "trust fund" to T-bills/bonds means that the fund is NOT as big as it could be; this limits payout potential. In effect, the payroll tax means that people are going to get a lesser/smaller return on their contributions than they might get if they just put the payroll tax in an IRA. Since most poorer folks do not have money leftover after payroll taxes and fixed expenses, this MOST hurts the poor; (richer folks can afford to pay the payroll tax and still have money leftover to fund and IRA).

(2) Can tax receipts received by the Federal government grow faster than direct investments in the economy WITHOUT THE FEDS RAISNG TAXES (and damaging the economy)?

NO. So, the ONLY way that the paleo-libs can keep the fund solvent is to RAISE TAXES. That is especially bad for poor folks (the payroll tax is the MOST regressive, anti-poor tax) and raisng taxes is bad for the economy. In effect, the paleo-libs policy is too screw the poor and to drain the economy.

(3) If bonds are better than stocks (and if this is Krugman's and other paleo-libs chief objection to individualization/partial privatization of Social Security), than why don’t they favor partially privatization and then limit each individual account to bonds?

Because they are religiously opposed to any change to FDR's Ponzi Scheme, aka: Social Security.

(4) Can the current system offer people inheritability?

NO. And inheritability would be a HUGE BOON to poor people.

(Heck - assuming more and more states allow "gay marriage" - the current system can't even offer gay-widows/widowers their "spouses" checks without an increse in the payroll tax or a cut in payments!)

I think the answers to these questions prove that Krugman and the paleo-libs are wrong on the facts, and essentailly favor keeping a system that is archaic and anti-poor. I KNOW: RIGHT NOW I AM POOR, AND THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET SOMETHING LIKE A "401k" would be if it came out of my payroll taxes. Rich folks already have both.

Or, look at it this way:

WOULD YOU WANNA USE A PHONE FROM 1935? WOULD YOU WANNA DRIVE A CAR FROM 1935 ON US 95? WOULD YOU WANNA FLY TO EUROPE IN A 1936 PLANE? So why would ANYONE wanna government retirement stipend system designed in 1935?!

It is time to innovate. NO: IT IS PASSED TIME! Partial privatization is OVERDUE.

EVEN IF there is no looming demographic shortfall, it is time to make innovative changes.

Of course, there IS a looming demographic crisis. When the paleo-libs deny there is a looming demographic shortfall, they're denying what Clinton and other libs admitted six years ago. Which is sort of like the paleo-lib position on Saddam: he was a grave threat to them in 1998 - when Clinton was in power - but a well-contained pussycat as soon as Bush became president.

The majority of people see through this HYPOCRISY. As a result Bush will win on partial privatization - just as he won on Iraq and the prescription drug plan and his education bill.

(YEAH I KNOW: there are 8 questions in this post!)