Momentum is now moving strongly in favor of thorough-going reform. And most plans dictate at least partial privatization. In The American Prospect's new "Virtual Controversy" feature, Michael Calabrese, director of domestic policy programs at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C., and the Economic Policy Institute's Dean Baker go head to head on a series of strategic and tactical questions that the program's supporters must confront: How can those who believe in Social Security - and it's underlying principles of universality and progressivity - best meet the challenge of the privatizers? Should Social Security's defenders oppose any measures for systematic reform while pointing out that the 'crisis' has been vastly overstated? Or should they make some tactical move in the direction of privatization in order to stake out the most advantageous political ground? Or might some inclusion of private savings accounts in addition to the current system actually be a good thing? For the whole discussion, see: <http://epn.org/prospect/contro/index.html>
THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM. What are the chances that Congress and the president will tackle the social security problem and enact reforms within the next several years? Does it seem more likely that they would adopt a comprehensive new system for retirement security or that they would approve more modest adjustments to the current system, returning the program to actuarial balance without altering its fundamental character? Are some kinds of reforms more politically attractive than others? These are important questions that deserve careful answers. "The Politics of Reforming Social Security," by R. Douglas Arnold, which appears in the Summer 1998 issue of Political Science Quarterly, addresses these questions within a general discussion of the political feasibility of alternative schemes for reforming Social Security. See: <http://epn.org/psq/arnold.html>
FIVE MAJOR SOCIAL SECURITY PROPOSALS. The Campaign for America's Future offers a comprehensive evaluation of five major proposals to reform Social Security. The report describes their major components - exposing what is gained and what is lost. Four of the proposals privatize part of Social Security by diverting taxes into private accounts. The fifth proposal, the Ball plan, does not divert Social Security funds into accounts. Instead a fully funded and secure Social Security system is complimented by tax-advantaged voluntary accounts on top of Social Security. The conclusion: Privatization makes Social Security's long term problems worse. <http://www.ourfuture.org/tpoint/briefnmfinal.asp>