Yes, of course. Scams piled on top of scams, on top of scams. An unworkable scheme, with unlimited obligations, created by political parasites who were dead before I was born.
Good thing we're Free.
Unfortunately, Pres. Bush can't issue edicts, he must persuade Congress (and the Congress critters always worry about re-election.)
But Pres. Bush can point to several examples. For example - the city workers in Galvaston, TX decided in the late '70's to go off Social Security and onto a "private plan" that operates much like what Pres. Bush proposes to implement gradually. The workers there retire with benefits that are 5 to 8 times better than Social Security. (IRS closed the loophole, so others could not benefit from this option.)
Another important example - Chile. Chile (in the 1970's, early 80's ??) had a social security system that was going (or already) bankrupt. Advisors from Univ. Chicago School of Economics (think Milton Friedman) provided advice, which was taken by Chile. Workers over 40 were allowed to stay on the existing system, under 40 - thrown off, but they had the equivalent amount of money required to be invested in "private accounts" (similar to what Federal Employees have in Thrift Savings Accounts). Over time, large amounts of capital (savings - vs. government bonds and wasteful spending) provided a significant growth in Chile (lots more private ownership!!) ... and retirement plans were significantly better than under the old system.
Pres. Bush knows that a startup system will probably whet the appetite for more and more privatization ... and eventually, we might end up doing what Chile did ... and everyone will benefit.
If we followed the Chilean model - if we allowed everyone under 40 to drop out, and their 6% contribution went to their own TSP, while the matching 6% went to existing Social Security liabilities ... we would work our way out of the existing mess.
The ONLY drawbacks are:
1. The government would no longer have extra income (under the table) ... so it would have to cut spending or raise taxes. It would probably do the latter, instead of the former.
2. The Democrats would be deathly afraid that even the poor and lower-middle class workers would suddenly be part of the "investor class", and therefore these workers would be supporting more capitalistic laws (tort-reform, more reasonable regulations on business, etc.) ... and the Democrat base would be eroded ... THEREFORE the Democrats will resist even this plan to their last dying breaths.
Mike
I never believed in Y2K but this is going to turn out much much worse than any chicken little ever dreamed that Y2K was going to be. I may be doomed to slavery myself but I'l be d@m^ed if my children are going to be.