Thanks to the Panelists, the Moderator, and all Participants

["Steven H. Johnson" <info@sscommonsense.org>]

What a stimulating forum!

Thanks to Ron Gebhardtsbauer, the panelists, and all the participants.

This electronic version of a "democracy wall" has much to recommend it.

It seems to me that there are two tough issues that still bedevil
this debate.

One is the notion that stock market returns of 7% are something of
a given.  A number of proposals rely on this proposition in one 
way or another.  

Another is the notion that "actuarial balance" is an adequate goal
for Social Security reform.  It sounds so formal, so technical.
It must be right.  It isn't.  It simply postpones insolvency to the 
77th year.  True solvency requires that Social Security's pool
of capital be at least as large in 2075 as in 2050, relative to GDP.

We didn't hear as much from Representatives Pomeroy and Nadler as
we might have.  Nadler's plan may achieve "actuarial balance" but
it doesn't achieve genuine solvency.  I would have appreciated 
his thoughts on this issue.

I think the best long-run solution for Social Security combines all
three approaches that have been under discussion in this forum:

1.  A continuation of pay-as-you-go financing, for as much of the 
program as is reasonable.

2.  A carve-out 2% PRA program, that ultimately accumulates a pool
of capital worth about 35% of GDP.

3.  A strong Trust Fund, that, through a federal subsidy, ultimately
accumulates a pool of capital worth about 30% of GDP.

The risks associated with PRA's can be reduced significantly by
pairing them with a strong Trust Fund.

The risks associated with a strong Trust Fund can be reduced significantly
by pairing it with a strong PRA program.

My thanks, again, to everyone.

Steve Johnson
Common Sense on Social Security
http://www.sscommonsense.org