Schieffer was wrong, Kerry was right
Contrary to the moderator's suggestion in the third debate, Social Security is not running out of money. And the Democratic candidate wasn't pandering when he said privatizing it would be disastrous.

CBS New anchor Bob Schieffer did a fine job of moderating the third presidential debate. Except for one thing. And that was when he began his question on Social Security by stating, "We all know Social Security is running out of money." Social Security is not running out of money. Here are the facts.

[more]

  thanks to Eschaton

Kerry Statement on Bush Plan to Privatize Social Security

“Just yesterday, we found out that the president told his biggest and wealthiest donors about his big ‘January surprise.’ He’s going to ‘come out strong’ to fight for his plan to privatize Social Security. This might be a good surprise for the wealthy and well-connected, but it’s a disaster for America’s middle class. The president’s privatization plan for Social Security is another way of saying to our seniors that the promise of security will be broken. “Once again, George Bush is out of touch. He just doesn’t get it. According to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office, his risky plan will force benefit cuts for seniors of up to 45 percent – that’s up to $500 a month less for food, clothing, and the occasional gift for a grandchild. “Even the president’s own economic advisors say his plan will blow a $2 trillion hole in Social Security. And guess who will pay for it? You will. America's seniors are already facing higher prescription drug costs, record high Medicare premiums, and higher gas costs. With family budgets being stretched to the limit, the last thing seniors need is the president's ‘January surprise.’ That's a surprise we can all live without.

[more]

  thanks to Eschaton

More Social Security

The point of Social Security is, after all, to guarantee an absolute minimum income for seniors no matter what bad luck befalls them or bad choices they've made. There's nothing magical about either the current benefit levels, aside from the fact that they aren't all that generous, or the precise levels of the payroll tax/income cap. We can add a mandatory investment account system without changing the existing rates/benefits at all if we want to. It isn't an either/or proposition. But, the basic issue I keep returning to is -- how do you devise a loot-free system? How do you devise a system which, either in its initial form or after expected later congressional tinkering, can't be looted to a large degree by the fund managers? I can't come up with one. Then, we're back to the issue of what do we do about a bunch of destitute 70 year olds? And, that's why we have Social Security in the first place...

[more]