Bush has increased the size of the federal budget faster than any president in the last 50 years. Don’t confuse talk with reality.

Claiming Bush as some kind of libertarian hero is liking a cop claiming victory because he got a serial killer to whisper “I love you” as he guts his victims.

With the possible exception of NAMBLA, it’s hard to imagine a political group thats been less effective than CATO and the libertarians these last 4 years,

Hard to imagine a group “less effective than CATO”?

Hmmmm… is that why you have the President using nearly every waking moment to stress the benefits of private accounts, SS reform is now a regular topic on the nightly on the news, and Congress is promising to get a bill together this summer?

And that’s just one issue.

Keep trying MB… you’re bound to get something right one of these days. You know what they say about a million monkeys typing and Shakespeare.

Buying an annuity before retirement (particulary in an unregulated market) does not spread the risks a DB plan based on best or average earnings does.

What about this proposal? We freeze SS contribution rates, and give a trustee board discretion to fiddle with benefits if necessary. The right stops talking about beer funds, accepts that the Trust Fund is a legitimate claim on future general revenue, and further accepts that the general fund needs to be brought into balance, by tax increases if need be.

Pensions are failing because companies are failing. The very companies the LINOs want to put our SS in. Will the last libertarian leaving reality please turn out the lights(powered by government subsidized electricity)?.

While the US Government doesn’t have absolute power to do so, it has at least the theoretical ability to raise payroll taxes and restore solvency. What are people going to do, say “hell no, I’m not paying” and move to Australia?

I think you have a good general point here, though, that hasn’t been stated explicitly. Namely: the sort of private actors that are best at providing sound defined benefits plans are those that sell perpetual annuities on the market to all comers. There are a variety of reasons why these annuities are more secure than corporate employee pensions. One is that they don’t have the moral hazard problems caused by the PBGC and its weird system of poorly-calibrated premiums and ham-handed regulation. And the fact that the PBGC– whose entire reason for existence is assessing the actuarial soundness of defined benefits plans– is not very good at its job adds (along with the repeated underestimates of the long-term costs of SS) to the evidence that government isn’t good at providing these plans either.

Now the mass-thievery proponents respond to this, I think, by saying “yeah, but government can tax its way out of its mistakes, thus lowering the risk of failure of its plans to even less than the best private providers.” This seems to be what Matt Y. means by “Corporations can’t just generate new revenues by taking a vote.” And it’s true as far as it goes, but is of little comfort to those of us whose see our taxes repeatedly raised to pay for our parents’ profligate mistakes.

Part of my point was that YOU CAN BUY A DEFINED BENEFITS PLAN in the form of an annuity on the market. Do I really need to show that?

Intrapersonal transfers through mandatory savings are better than interpersonal transfers through taxes and welfare payments for a number of reasons. Stopping someone from consuming their money for a period of time is morally better than simply taking it away. That’s a limitation rather than an outright violation of a property right. Furthermore, involvement in investment markets gives everyone a direct stake in the performance of the economy and closes the gap between the investing and non-investing classes. Because the market is our deepest source of interdependence, mutuality, and cohesion, it is better that everyone have a vested interest in it. Additionally, people have a greater sense of efficiacy and self-respect when their own money pays for their own retirement. Etc.

Also, it seems like the Cato plan is biting the moral hazard / risky investments bullet: “He also pretends that the personal account plans do not include some means-tested assistance to people whose personal retirement savings and investments leave them below a critical threshold.” Is this right?

As far as “optimal tax policy” as an argument against taxing more for social security down the road–do you really believe a couple percent of GDP in across-the-board tax hikes would launch USia over the Laffer peak? Because I don’t want higher taxes to pay for the elderly either, but I can’t buy that line.

Provided, of course, that they make the proper payment to Tom DeLay and the rest of Will’s masters…