Mr. Davis' analysis is in remarkable agreement with my own. Are there others holding similar views? I don't see how it is possible to talk of saving Social Security without accurately describing what it is. And since it is actually many different things that can't really be understood as a whole, dissecting it into its various elements by their characteristics is a way to make the program comprehensible and subject to rational value judgements. I support Mr. Davis' call for openness and honesty. (He provides a link to writings of Eugene Stuerle, who has also called for more transparency.)
The separation of pension and insurance benefits based on contributions from those that are part of a social safety net or result from political gifting is a useful distinction. Each should be financed by separable tax streams drawn from bases that are appropriate to their essential nature. We need to stop single single-entry bookkeeping, singing the praise of benefits without recognizing that there are corresponding costs. And who should bear those costs should be subject to serious, ethical, reasoned study.
Davis also talks of Clinton's budget proposal for giving the Social Security Trust Fund bonds worth a couple of trillion. According to Alan Blinder in the New York Time editorial of March 9, the bond along with Equity market investments actually amounted to general fund commitments of closer to 3.5 trillion. While I believe there is a good rationale for general fund financing, Clinton didn't elaborate one and his proposal was promptly disposed with. What parts of Social Security, if any, do you believe should be funded out of general revenues?
