Excellent piece. I didn't see one thing I disagreed with. Along with the annual charges, which could easily be one percent of the balances (which, as the article notes, takes a big chunk out of the final balance, when compounded over a long period), they might have mentioned the annuity conversion cost which comes on top of the management fees and is also significant. The part about women skates over some issues regarding the treatment of employed spouses, but these can be fixed within the structure of the program.
Would that Washington Post coverage were as well-informed.
In advance, without reading it, I can confidently recommend the forthcoming Aaron/Reischauer book (from Brookings). It will be worth reading for anyone interested in this. One just has to keep in mind they are deficit hawks, so their solution is geared to using reforms to increase budget surpluses and national saving, which they think helps the program. But their critique of privatization will probably be devastating.
MBS