Subject: RE: James' reply to Thanks, Don and Dorothy
>From: Richard Arsinow
>>>>My observation was that, on this board, you are more likely to find advocates of "saving" or "strengthening" suggesting means testing than you are to find advocates of "privatization" suggesting means testing. Most advocates of "privatization" writing on this board want promised benefits to be guaranteed to current retirees who have paid in for so many years, just as they want full recognition of all past contributions as part of a transition.
But few privatization advocates have really accounted on where we get the money to fund those benefits. Paying for both full current benefits and 'recognition' will involve massive borrowing. It's pretty easy to ignore the future debt or taxes required to pay for that, but in the end, somebody (read 'taxpayer') has to pay for it. And where is that little 'fact' considered in the CATO calculator? It is not. What percentage of future income will be needed to carry and retire those debts? We need to know those 'minor details' to evaluate whether the reform is really any better than what we have now.
>>>>The Concord Coalition does not strongly advocate privatization.
Maybe not officially, but Peterson (the head of the Concord Coalition) sure does, and his opinions are prominently displayed at their site:
>From Peterson at Concord Coalition site:
>>>>My Option B is politically incorrect in that it suggests that there must be real reform -- which is a euphemism for some cuts in benefits. And, at the same time, there must be more savings, which I get first by eliminating the government's dissaving (that is, its budget deficits, including its Social Security deficits) and then by setting up mandatory, personally-owned, portable and vested retirement accounts. These accounts would increase personal savings and be invested in the real economy.
But you are right, I was mistaken in that they had not been mentioned on this forum. My apologies.
