Exhume Goldwater ’08

Have you looked at the link I provided? Basically I explain that the government will *never* let old people die of starvation, so the default position is means-testing *PLUS* an investment plan, not an actual investment plan where you’re given risk.

Then, what will the requirements of that investment plan be? How much freedom of choice will you have on where you put that money? How much distortion will occur in the market to get a hold of the enormous sums of money the government’s restrictions on which funds become “approved investments”?

I say if the government won’t ever let old people starve, we’re already at a means-testing. I’d prefer to have the freedom to get the tax savings in my pocket, invest it myself, and do so without ANY interference from the government.

Another idea I heard was the idea that when this happens, government-approved funds would be required to have a certain percentage of T-Bills. What’s that? A way to force citizens who take advantage of personal accounts to help keep the government’s deficits going! Not something I want to support.

The only “hard” data I got on the plan was a write-up in the local San Jose Mercury news. From what I could gather it would allow you to invest a portion of your contributions in funds of your choice. There was also some talk of the choice of funds changing depending on your age. The level of risk would be indirectly proportional to your age. Regardless, it seemed more like a mandated 401(k) plan instead of a mandated ponzi scheme. In Bush’s plan I would take direct ownership of the money instead of the current system, where I’m just promised that a few poor saps will fund my retirement.

While I think means-testing is a good idea to make it financially solvent I don’t really understand how it would improve economic freedom. In fact, with a means-test wouldn’t SS just be another wealth redistribution plan?

I’m not a big fan of Bush’s plan (or, what we think his plan might have been, based on our own estimates, since he never really submitted a real plan) to privatize SS. There’s a reason I referred to the proposal as Social Security Part D.

Basically, I think any Bush-created privatization plan would be a big gift to the major investment houses, much like the Medicare plan was a giveaway to the pharma companies. And it will allow the government to stick their regulatory hands even deeper into the stock market, which we both know is a bad thing.

You want to improve economic freedom *without* increasing regulation? Means-test Social Security.

Well there was the Social Security reform. That was a net positive for economic freedom … although it didn’t pass …

Or what you are going to do, veto the bill? I’m sure the Democrats are shaking in fear.

Also, since when has George W. Bush stood for economic freedom?