Privatization of Social Security

[Max Sawicky]

Big difference is Bush's plan is a 'carve-out.'
He uses payroll tax revenues.  Gore's does not;
it's a new tax cut.

Gore's is not terribly different from what Clinton
proposed two years ago.  This did have the danger
that a system of private accounts linked to tax
revenues potentially made it easier administratively
to privatize Soc Sec.  On the other hand, it was a
pretty straight-forward redistribution of wealth.
Not huge, but progressive in its own way.

the potentially depressing effect of such policies
on employment is a separate question, and in light
of recent experience not very compelling, since
employment has been so high in the face of significant
deficit reduction.

Most people have nothing in the way of wealth other
than homes, vehicles, household durables, and Soc
Sec.  Many don't even have bank accounts and end up
paying more for simple financial services.  the issue
of those with no saving or bank is important and should
not be left to the Demonaderepubs.

mbs

Anyone notice that Gore is now changing his tune again on the
privatization of social security?  Moving more towards the Bush
position.  Only Gore wants to use federal matching funds?  Gorebush.
Anyone got the details.

Here's an interview by Doug's competitor the Bob Kuttner of Ralph Nader,

http://www.prospect.org/archives/V11-15/kuttner-r-conversation.html

Tom Lehman