Good article, Kenn. Nice to see someone proposing libertarian policies without insisting that only Ron Paul can implement them.

You do miss one thing, though. McCain actually has a pretty strong record on favoring social security privatization.

According to the NYT, in 2000 he proposed a partial privatization plan which was much more ambitious than what Bush eventually offered:

McCain will present today his first comprehensive plan for apportioning the spoils of the nation's current prosperity, calling for. a program to shore up Social Security through the establishment of individual retirement accounts. McCain also specifically allocates money to help Medicare, which like Social Security faces a financial shortfall as the population ages. He calls for workers to have the option of investing at least 20% of their Social Security payroll taxes in private accounts.

"You do miss one thing, though. McCain actually has a pretty strong record on favoring social security privatization."
-Dave

The article does not promote the creation of government managed IRA accounts, so no, McCain does not have a strong record on social security privatization.

"What we really need from McCain and Obama is a free market approach not an endorsement of continuing government planning in regards to retirement accounts"
-Ken

I see nothing "private" about being forced into a program that is managed by the government and enforced through government coercion. McCain likes socialism, he just doesn't advertise as much. Sorry, there are only so many ways socialism can be spun. I do not understand why it is so difficult for some people to see through century old government propaganda.

Great article BTW!

While McCain has supported managed IRAs, he has also supported the creation of private accounts. The quotes I provided referred specifically to private accounts, not managed IRAs.

Basically he seems in favor of anything he might be able to get passed which would take some money out of the hands of government and put it back in the hands of the people, and that's a very good thing.

McCain is not a socialist, he's a pragmatist. He's willing to take any progress he can actually make happen in the hopes it will lead to incremental advancement towards greater goals.

Dave

"While McCain has supported managed IRAs, he has also supported the creation of private accounts. The quotes I provided referred specifically to private accounts, not managed IRAs."

I believe you are wrong. Please provide a source where McCain claims he supports private IRA's?

To support private IRA's over the current system implies government involvment and enforcement, because if the government wasnt involved or government managment wasnt planned, McCain could just say "I want you to keep your money and do what you want with it."

From his website:
John McCain Will Reform Social Security. He will fight to save the future of Social Security while meeting our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts - but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. He will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity.

In other words, "You can have a private account if you want, but because I wont raise taxes anywhere else and old people still need their government money, you still will have a social security tax."

Or more accurately, provide a link where McCain states he supports private accounts with no other government involvement.

The point of Social Security is to provide for those that are mot smart enough or productive enough workers to set aside for their own retirement in addition to their everyday needs. Privatizing the program will not help these people therefore it ain't gonna happen.

The really irritating thing is, is that I'm 92% certain they'll end up 'saving' the program by implementing wealth and income qualifications. They'll punish people such as myself who decided against the 4000sqft house and new car every 2 years and instead put money away for my own retirement.

That is the only answer, it's just a matter of when. They will cut off benefits for anyone who has their own retirement, period.

The really irritating thing is, is that I'm 92% certain they'll end up 'saving' the program by implementing wealth and income qualifications. They'll punish people such as myself who decided against the 4000sqft house and new car every 2 years and instead put money away for my own retirement.

That is the only answer, it's just a matter of when. They will cut off benefits for anyone who has their own retirement, period.

Or they could do away with the entire system altogether, increase taxes on the rich, and continue paying the same benefits. Time to stop pretending SS is actually distinct from the rest of government.

Russell, look at McCain's page at ontheissues.com.

He has very clearly both endorsed taking 20% out of peoples SS contributions and letting them invest it privately, and also endorsed letting the self-employed get a tax deduction for their SS tax, which I think is an excellent idea.

And yes, he has also suggested IRAs and other less radical programs, but you're not seeing the full extent of his willingness to look for solutions to the SS problem.

Dave

"Time to stop pretending SS is actually distinct from the rest of government."

True, SS itself isn't in that bad of shape but you throw in medicare and you see that we're screwed. Oh well, that is far down the road for me, we'll see what happens. I still feel certain a benefit reduction will be the final solution either taken from medicare or SS or both.

Ponzi scheme, eh?

Of course, one could argue that EVERY investment scheme ever promoted is a "Ponzi Scheme". After all, the promoter asks people to invest their money in Ponzis plan to do something that will cause other people to pay even more money for that same stock. Perhaps based on sales of some 'product', which may in fact just be more promises. Perhaps based on the notion that there exists an even bigger fool than you who will pay even more money for that same stock.

Isn't the whole "Google" stock history a big Ponzi scheme?

Of course the problem is that SS is a successful program. It actually delivers benefit to actual people on a regular basis. With a low overhead cost.

Best leave SS alone.

If one were to privatize SS we would face the fate that has befallen so many privatized pension program: bankruptcy and impoverished retirees.

Do you think there's any money left in the PBGC treasury to support a bankrupt SS?

And SS will certainly go broke if it is privatized. It is in the best interests of the operators to cash in the assets and distribute those assets to themselves. They will have the means to do so and there are no criminal disincentives to prohibit it.

If you want to pick on a Managed Economy that is a flagrant failure and in immediate need of reform, how about Oil or Agriculture or Warfare? All of those are Corporate Statist Managed Economies and all of them are failing and putting the USA at risk.

In particular, the Oil Economy has become a parody of a Managed Private Economy as we shovel $13billion more in public subsidies into a Managed Economy whose prices continue to rise without any apparent brake, and which requires our participation in a $1-3trillion war to maintain the facade of a Free Market Economy.

The Oil, Agriculture and Warfare economies are Potemkin Economies, erected to put on a show of Free Enterprise while accomplishing none of the competitive aims of an Enterprise economy.

Or, better yet, there's a dude who around here who's invented a Perpetual Motion Financial Machine that should solve all or problems, and even more!

Good chat so far. I've got nothing meaningful to add.

Doug is right. The government always seems to punish those who are responsible and reward those who are not. Each year I see my estimated SS payouts going down with my contributions going up. I've know since I was 18 years old that I would retire some day. If I don't take advantage of that then I wouldn't expect anyone to be forced to pay for my lazyness/ignorance. SS needs to be eliminated. The way to do that is to slowly but steadily cut back benefits until it is no longer something to be relied upon. Then it can be removed completly.

#14: I was just thinking the same thing.

Then again, any type of privatization talk is bound to pique me ears.

Nice article.