Right before 2004's election I did a paper for a Soc class on Social Security Reform. I was leary of it. But what I came to the conclusion of was that a lot of ideology was involved in the debate and very little substance. The public was rightly cautious and confused.
I think a real debate has been lacking and we need it.

ISSUE 1: Is SocSec in real jeopardy?
This was the main talking point of opposition, possibly a bit too optimistic about SocSec. But the good points made by those who argue this:
* The pushers of privatization are overly dramatic about how quick it must be done, seemingly trying to force us to a quick decision. Not healthy for debate, comparable to global warming debate (and possibly part of the reason this policy failed)
* Social Security can simply have benefit levels cut or taxes raised. Not anything anyone wants... but possiblilities.
* Though people are having fewer children, immigrants (legal ones who pay taxes) may offset the difference. What this brings up is the possibility of competing prediction models and just how hard it is to predict the future.
...But of course there is the fact that the government likes to STEAL from SocSec funds. That's why SocSec is in danger!

ISSUE 2: Is privatization the answer?
There are other alternatives.
* Cut benefits.
*Raise taxes and tell the government to keep its stinking paws out of SocSec funds.
* Fund SocSec: That is the Clinton privatization plan- allow the government to invest SocSec funds to raise the amount that comes back and possibly even boost the stock market... Upside: government can hire stock managers that are better educated than the average joe, government can invest larger amounts at once... Downside: Government picking and choosing where to put stocks! At the very least, government would need to outsource this job in order to gain some credibility.
* Partial privatization- the Bush/Cato Institute type plans. Resembles 401K.
* Maybe something else. For purpose of this debate, let's not bother with the radical "Who needs SocSec?!" stuff. But I might be overlooking another alternative.

ISSUE 3: If privatization, how?
The plans created by congress ranged in the following factors:
* Number of points put in the market mandatorily, number allowed in by choice.
* Scope of safety net (contrary to detractors' doom threats, every plan had a safety net for disabled and poor)
Other things to consider (weaknesses found in the plans) include:
*spousal benefits. The privatization plans didn't cover this issue, one of SocSec's strengths.
* choices in stock packages for SocSec funds
... I'd also like to know more about how they will set up the infrastructure.
A (*)(*)(*)(*) good point by the naysayers was that the amount that would be deducted from everyone's retirement for the cost of account management would make the program pointless for anyone who isn't pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) well-off... Considering that SocSec is anti-poverty retirement insurance...

Okay. So bring up some more points, folks. Let's have a real, transparent debate with little partisan ideological banter. I promise not to have dissenters removed unlike SOME townhall meeting holders.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside