something i find quite disturbing in all the deserved slamming on bush's "plan" is the presumption that social security is healthy as it stands. as this article implies, some of the biggest defenders of social security's viability are the same folks who couldn't decry enron and similar accounting scams loudly enough. yet what has been done with social security eclipses by a lamentable margin all corporate accounting scams in the history of the united states.

claims of social security's health are easily debunked by anybody with an accounting 101 background, the facts as acknowledged on the record by government, and an objective (non government-worshiping) view. when social security's defenders tell us of the vaunted trust fund and how it's not yet being culled for "benefits", they neglect to mention the inevitable collision coming our way when the "trust fund" (the only "assets" of which are debt slips) needs its money from the same entity that was just getting paid by it literally 2 minutes before.

in other words, when that 2-way valve is finally reversed, and it's time to tap into the "trust fund", that fund's debtor will have just lost one of its biggest sources of cash (the money entering that selfsame account, swapped for government paper debt) at the very same time its biggest IOU is being called in. the shortfall will not come from nowhere. that is an undeniable fact that's, frankly, quite scary and does not bode well for the future of the united states -- let alone social security.

there aren't many options for dealing with the shortfall when it hits. government will do one or more of the following: 1) limit "benefits" severely, 2) up payroll taxes drastically, 3) inflate the money supply (a hidden, pernicious tax), 4) up general taxes on everyone, 5) enter catastrophic bankruptcy -- the beginning of the end.

some people believe you can live on credit forever. those are the ones saying there's nothing wrong with social security. do i support bush's asinine scheme? no. my position, frankly, is irrelevant to accounting reality. just because it's bush saying that social security's in trouble does not automatically mean it's wrong. he happens to be in the broken clock arena (right once every 5 years) on this one. go figure.

Charlie,

The fact that your link is to essentially a money management firm speaks volumes to your "understanding" of the alrger issues. The bottom line is that Social Security has been a thorn in the far right's side since it's inception. To George Bush and his fellow fascists, it has been a rallying call as to what is wrong with this country. This is not about fixing something that is broken. This is about dismantling something that works (and has continued to work with minor adjustments). The concept that it can only be fixed by reducing benefits by 60%, or the establishment of private accounts (that will most likely lose money rather than earn it) is, of course, the big fat lie that you obviously buy into. Give me a call when you get 40% of the benefits that you felt you are owed when you turn 68 (and the value of your private account is 50% less than when you started) and let me know your assanine thoughts.