Social Security 2.0: Coming in 2007?

US News & World Report ^ | Oct. 24, 2006 | James Pethokoukis

[DredTennis]

In a television interview last weekend, President Bush said Social Security reform was "still alive" and again declared that it would be one of his top goals when the next Congress convenes. Of course, that's what Bush said right after the 2004 election. And despite pushing the issue hard and personally campaigning for it around the country–60 cities in 60 days in early 2005–the idea's beta version never really took off with the American people, and no legislation was ever submitted. So, what are the chances of reform happening in a Congress that will almost certainly be less hospitable to Bush than the current one?

Ask any veteran Washington hand, and you'll certainly get a skeptical response. "Bush has fought the good fight on this issue," says Charles Gabriel, political analyst for Prudential Securities, "but he wasn't able to get it done when he had enhanced political capital after the 2004 election." Gabriel thinks that the White House will have a tough enough time just getting Congress to reauthorize fast-track trade authority next year, much less starting a revamp of perhaps the most politically sensitive federal program in existence.

... In Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's first speech after being confirmed in the post, he spent a good chunk of his time advocating entitlement reform. "I have always tried to live by the philosophy that when there is a big problem that needs fixing, you should run toward it, rather than away from it," Paulson said in an August 1 address at Columbia University. "That is one of the reasons I decided to come to Washington, and that is the reason I admire the president's political courage and willingness to address entitlement reform."

[Ethrane]

"People like you are so smug about your virtues that you deserve to be hit by a bus and spend the rest of yout life paralyzed and dependant on the good will and generosity of others."

That it quite honestly one of the most evil things I've seen posted here recently.

[sphinx]

Social Security is a social insurance program, not a savings program.

And that's exactly what's wrong with it. A fully funded investment account approach would generate significantly higher benefits, plus an inheritable estate. Moving all Americans into the investor class would be a good thing. Democrats fear it because they want to keep people dependent.

[Just another Joe]

"If you make over a certain amount per year, and it's not a large amount by any means, you can't collect SS."

Then tell me why my Grandfather couldn't collect any SS unless me made below $12,000 a year?