>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>-Probably not, but we should be honest about this. Clinton was on his
>-way to a privatization, until it was derailed by Monica. And it
>-wouldn't surprise me at all that a Pres Hillary would do the job. We
>-should be grateful Bush proposed it, because it's getting opposition
>-it might not otherwise get.
>
>Doug, this is ridiculous. Clinton specifically proposed NOT having social
>security money put in private accounts, but preferred having the government
>invest some of the money directly in equities, for which he was roundly
>attacked by the rightwing. See our friend James Glassman testifying agains
>the plan here:
>http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17035,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
>
>Clinton also proposed private accounts IN ADDITION to social security,
>funded by $500 billion in general revenues that would go overwhelmingly to
>the poorest Americans to build up some real retirement savings for them.
This didn't sound right to me, so I asked Dean Baker, who lives & breathes Social Security, what Clinton's SS schemes were - to use today's language, carve-outs (diversion of SS taxes into private accounts) or add-ons (creation of private accounts in addition to existing SS arrangements). Here's Dean's answer:
>Bill never put anyhting on the table -- Monica's blue dress got in
>the way. The conventional wisdom inside the beltway was that he
>would have proposed a carve-out, but you won't find this in writing
>anywhere. he did propose a separate add-on account, which never went
>anywhere.
Doug