>>I’d bet that would get a reaction from Congress.<<
It was floated by W: allowing a TINY % of SS to be invested by the owners. You would have thought they were talking about clubbing puppies and baby seals in the village square!
I would be all in favor of privatizing. Keep traditional social security for the older folks who are on it or soon will be, but privatize for the younger ones. They will make out much better, and if they die before they collect, their heirs would get that money. I liked W’s plan. Too bad it wasn’t given a chance. The dems used the ‘pushing grandma over a cliff’ lie.
The reaction of the Dems, media and AARP was a cacophonous, shrieking whine.
SS is doomed unless discussion of common sense reforms are met with a mature reception. Impossible in this climate.
“allowing a TINY % of SS to be invested by the owners”
That’s the best solution. However, the “problem” is one of control. Once a person can invest the money themselves, the government can’t touch it.
The frigging solution is so damn simple, but, again, the problem lies with the powermongers and knownothings that are infinitely more wise than you’ll ever be! (sarcasm implied)