Left Brain/Right Brain: Should Social Security be privatized?

James: In December, President Bush promised that Social Security reform would be a major focus of his second term. Part of his plan would allow people currently paying into the system to put a portion of their FICA payments into private accounts. Why do liberals think this is a bad idea?

Lisa: In this, our first column of the first week of the first month of the new year, how gracious of you to refrain from firing the first shot across the bow and abiding, instead, by the good old-fashioned principle, Ladies First. Such gentlemanly behavior is undoubtedly an aspect of your conservative charm, many more aspects of which I look forward to discovering in the course of our collaboration.

You gallantly imply that I speak for all liberals! Alas, only Jerry Falwell and Dr. Laura can do that. I can only offer my own honest answer to your question, and it is this: The thought of privatizing Social Security makes me nervous, first, because I suspect there are at least a handful of people besides me who don't know what FICA stands for, but mainly just because George Bush thinks it's such a great idea.

James: Well, I can't presume to speak for all right-wingers. For one thing I didn't vote for Bush. Even so, I still get the feeling that some people would hate Bush even if he could lay on hands and cure cancer. But if the next few decades will end up with more people receiving benefits than paying into the system, then we need to change the Social Security financing system even IF Bush thinks it's a good idea.

Lisa: I don't hate George Bush! He probably can lay on hands and cure cancer; he just doesn't have time right now because he's too busy doing the Lord's work in Iraq. Furthermore, his personal Social Security program is a stellar success, consisting of choosing Prescott Bush to be his grandfather for security, then following up by socializing with others whose judgment in selecting their ancestors was equally sound. I appreciate his vote of confidence, but does he really think I'll be better at picking stocks than I was picking Grampa?

James: It's precisely because most of us don't inherit a fortune that we need to rethink how Social Security is financed. Right now, the government subtracts a certain portion of everyone's paycheck (that's the "FICA" thing), but it doesn't go to an individual retirement account or stock option. It goes into the general fund to pay benefits for everyone who already paid into the system, but that fund is still part of general spending, that Congress can raid at will. There is no "lockbox." And when the fund has been short, as in the past, they can change benefits or raise taxes on them. Once you give that money to the government, it ISN'T your money anymore. In itself, that's merely immoral. But in FDR's day, there were enough people to pay into the system. When the last parts of the boomer generation retire, there won't be enough for them, and the fact that they paid into SS all their working lives won't matter.

Lisa: In FDR's day, I hear tell, it suddenly became painfully, excruciatingly, flagrantly obvious that it was folly to rely solely on the individual's discipline, ingenuity, and dumb luck as a hedge against collective calamity. Social Security was meant to preserve in decrepitude those of us whose talents lie elsewhere than in the realm of high finance, to grant solace to the hapless orphan, the penniless widow and other lazy-ass freeloaders. It was meant to absolve the idle rich of annoying pangs of conscience associated with a sense of responsibility to "do something" for the poor. Would it not again be folly to risk all that by tossing the speculations the ignorant masses into the mix?

James: "Ignorant masses"? FDR was less patrician. If we can't trust people to save for their own finances--as they have to spend their own Social Security checks anyway--why do we trust them to vote for Democrats?

Lisa: FDR, a person of less "refined upbringing, manners and taste" than I? You flatter me! I count myself first among those ignorant masses. Not only do I vote for Democrats but, unlike Republicans, I frequently neglect to set aside 10 percent of my income to provide for my dubious future. Even when I do, I screw things up and prove my ignorance all over again. Like the paltry sum I've managed to set aside in an IRA: I invested it in a reputable mutual fund. That fund went straight to hell in a handbasket after Sept. 11 and its reputable managers have been convicted of criminal activity. I'm a damned ignorant fool, all right, and ought not to be trusted.