Costs Too Much
I have no problem with the idea of permitting people to invest some portion of their Social Security funds in the markets. I'd invest some of mine, all things being equal. Its the costs I object to. Given Bush's comments about controlling our debt to support the "strong dollar" policy (that he tacitly rebukes by his drunken sailor spending habits coupled with tax cutting fanaticism), how can he justify the trillions it may take over a decade to make this change in the pain-free manner he suggests? Answer: there really is no pain-free. We'd all pay the costs of borrowing to let those of us who wish to invest our Social Security $ in equities. Why not put some real "accountability" on the table? Not in the fictional Rumsfeldian-Abu-Graib sense. I mean real accountability. If you invest, you accept the risk of real benefit reduction. And you pay the costs of administering the investments. Never happen. Listen to what some republicans had to say about the idea that is "up there" on the W. agenda:

• "Anybody who thinks borrowing money for the transition to personal accounts is going to solve the problem of the long-term solvency of Social Security doesn't understand the size of the problem," said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the retirement system. Mr. Grassley said Congress would also have to put benefit reductions and tax increases on the table, in part to hold down the need for borrowing and in part to assure that any changes restore Social Security's long-term financial stability.

• Representative Jim Kolbe, Republican of Arizona, said the government could probably keep new borrowing to $800 billion over 10 years, but only if Congress and the administration are willing to back tax increases and benefit cuts as part of a broad overhaul of the retirement system. "People do not understand that tough choices need to be made," Mr. Kolbe said.

Never mind that this proposal does nothing in and of itself to increase savings. It simply holds out the hope of higher net returns after the cost of borrowing. This is no solution and should not be undertaken until or unless the voters (that US, folks) are willing to accept a tax increase or user fees to fund it, and/or the reduction of benefits based on risk or means testing or whatever formula PAYS for it. Scream all you like about fairness of this or that proposal.................just show me the money that pays for this and we can do it. Turns out the only way to get this money is borrow and have us all pay or suggest tax increases or benefit cuts (read: pain in the here and now - accountability.)

Why is it that we can suggest opening up the entire population, via increased debt, to the costs of some of us investing without risk is o.k....... while suggesting the entire population have universal health care is taboo because the costs might be spread unevenly? You can hear the Republican machine beating the "class warfare" drum beating already, can't you?