could also be a good one for national health care.

If we're going to put on our thinking caps and do some hard work, shouldn't we apply the effort to an issue other than Social Security?  The country seems to like SS as it is, with tweaking to put it on sounder footing.  We have to keep on top of the SS issue to make sure the Bushies don't pull a stunt on us, but I'd say apply the thinking to another important policy like, for instance, health care, as staleync says.

The points hilzoy made are good ones; I'd like to see more ideas for how to do universal health care.

Everyone is going to either get old or die before doing so. Of the group that gets old, some will be wealthy, some will be comfortable economically, and some will struggle economically just to live. Social Security should be a government provided insurance policy that we all have so that no one faces the situation described last above. If a simple welfare program is used to provide this insurance we are all at risk of a future penurious administration cutting the program so they can cut taxes. That demands that it be, instead, a universal program that insures everyone equally.

We all pay income taxes, and it used to be that those were progressive taxes, so that those with high incomes paid a large percentage of the last increment of income as a tax. If Social Security payments were taxable as ordinary income, that progressive income tax would largely "reclaim" the unneeded Social Security payment for those with high incomes, but barely, if at all, touch the Social Security payments for those with low incomes. This seems like a very good, equitable, honorable and human program for providing "old age economic distress" insurance.

(a) One function of government should be to provide us with some sort of insurance against major risks, when this can be done without drastic side-effects (like breaking the bank.)

Right there, a major portion of the brainwashed audience stops listening. This is "old fashioned liberal claptrap", which ignores the fact that private free enterprise systems are so much better than crusty old socialist thinking, just look at the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc, blah blah blah, so if you don't favor getting rid of Social Security you must be an atheist who thinks we should coddle lazy old folks.

They're partially right, in that a private system would create more jobs. People have to be hired to find reasons to deny claims, more people would need to be hired who knew how to deal with excuses coming from the first set of people, etc. In the end, of course, we'd be better off with a public system that set aside money for all these people to collect a paycheck and stay home all day, instead of going to work at jobs whose sole function is to make life difficult for the rest of us. Just look at our health care system, which would tremendously benefit if certain people were to stay home and watch soap operas instead of driving to work and doing the jobs they're being paid for.

Social Security is a successful program in part because it enjoys the imprimatur of force. Everyone who works is forced to participate. If it were a voluntary program, like an annuity, there would be major problems with it. It would be funded only by people who cannot easily fund their own retirement. People in their 20s and 30s would bet their futures on becoming rich, and would decline to participate. Nobody would want to sign up until they were 50 and by then the payments would be crushing.

 This is something that private outfits cannot offer, unless we force people to buy an annuity from someone, sort of like how you can't drive without car insurance. If we went in that direction, we'd end up with the same class of undesirable workers whose sole job would be to concentrate their employers' profits by denying benefits and making us all miserable. The present SS system is successful because it never created such a class of vested interests. It offers low return but theoretically zero risk (until Bush came along, anyway). Vested interests in other industries (retirement planning, 401k) are behind the effort to get rid of it, because it works well and nobody makes a huge profit from it.

Josh Marshall warns us against "mush and muddle, whispers and fog", then encourages just that with his hypothetical question. Remember, Josh, there are no bad answers, just bad questions.

Practically, what should we set our sights on next? What would help the country most, employers and employees, young and old? What is doable and polls show most people would vote for? NATIONAL HEALTHCARE.

Democratic leaders still act chastened by Hillary's experience with this subject. But Amercans have no memory. Try again. Sell it like Bush tried to sell Social Security private accounts: sell the idea without specifying the details. Hillary's wonkish, detail oriented approach, was death.

In keeping with my belief that we must not offer detailed ideas for new or improved programs without also defining how we would pay for them, my justification above for why we need a "Social Security" program must be accompanied by how it should be paid for. No insurance program, as the Social Security program is, can be paid from the general fund. It needs to be a stand alone financing method. Otherwise, a future penurious administration will decide that program cuts are needed in order to help justify another tax cut, and Social Security not being a defense oriented program would stand near the head of the line for a cut.

Social Security must be paid by a dedicated tax, which, in my opinion should be a tax on income of all kind. That tax should not be regressive by limiting the income on which it is paid. It should be a uniform tax rate for all income at all levels, from $1000 per year to $10,000,000 per year. Since the Social Security benefit will be income taxed, those earning high incomes will end up paying most of their Social Security back, but those at low incomes will pay back a very small portion of the benefit. So, the benefit should be proportional to the amount of Social Security tax you have paid over your working career.

<I>Yeah; the thought was to make it expandable to other things.  </I>
<br><br>
this is definitely true. i think what is unique about SS is that this is an issue where the public is largely on the democrats side. so it is almost a gimme for the dems if they want to use it to expound on a broader governing philosophy, given that the republicans have chosen to pick this fight. i see it as sort of a training ground for the dems to develop arguments that can later have resonance on health care and other topics. unfortunately many politicians are too literal minded and only consider the concrete result for the issue at hand.

 I believe the best argument for SS as it is today is that you get a guaranteed set sum of money which is not dependant on the state of the economy unless it were to be an increase to keep up with the increased cost of living.  

 Some argue that with increased life spans SS is more costly yet I would argue that increased life spans are the best argument for SS as it exists today. Obviously if you live longer the greater the chance your savings would run dry so now is when you really will be relying on SS for your basic needs.

 I might argue that paying for SS through taxes is probably much cheaper than the alternative that is proposed by Bush which requires massive amounts of borrowing to fund.

 I would also argue that life has many unexpected twists and turns, you may suddenly find yourself in a hospital and even with health insurance you could find your life savings drained by the high cost of health care. No health insurance is a bottomless pit spewing out money to pay for your hospital bills, there is a point where it runs out.

 To sum it up I think the two most important points are that it is guaranteed and that it is a set sum.

Yes, there are conservatives who feel that Social Security is just "crusty old socialism" (including W Bush) but they are in the minority.  What is crucial is that they pretend to believe in Social Security even as people are out chanting 'hey hey ho ho Social Security has got to go', shredding social security documents and their thinktanks supporting this.  First and foremost, the Democrats need to have a narrative committed to winning and pushing at least somewhat of a progressive agenda, the kind that I naively thought (and wrote) Clinton would usher in as of Dec 1992.  (Others, even who had almost assuredly never read it, would protestate the party lying that my views were too harsh when the opposite is the case).  But to be committed to even the mildest of progressive agendae other than simply reversing the 'negative progress' of W Bush is to go against the program; Democrats need to fight to win and push the country in a progressive direction from where it was in 2000.

   The first thing, on Social Security, is to gather together all those quotes from past campaigns (they are myriad) of how Democrats were just 'scaring the public' about Social Security and then juxtaposing that with crowds attacking Social Security and quotes on the screen from major rightwing thinktanks.  Some of the more insincere looking and confused quotes from W would be icing on the cake.  This ad and close variants should be placed over and over and over in all the areas where anything between the parties is seriously contested.  Then you would have some beginning of a serious countermomentum against conservatives.   The country has not been moving to the right ideologically over the past 20 years the way it did in the previous 20-15 years.  During the earlier period there was a reaction to the 60s, and now there is just an unchallenged intensification of the RW's organizing and mobilizing, and ideological indoctrination and training within their ranks.  Youth voted more heavily Democratic than in almost any election in 2004 even those won by Democrats.  The Repubs have the Democrats take a dive in the fourth, and then have to steal elections that were already thrown to win.  But the Democrats have to be different from what they are now -- not let the Clarke interview from Fahrenheit 9/11 slip through their hands, or anything equivalent.  And where they fail, the 527s should step in.

     Now, should there be Social Security -- yes protecting the elderly and disabled is a central function of the modern state, unless you are a yahoo.  That's the answer for ourselves and for the mass public.  How would I restructure Social Security differently if forming it today?  That's a difficult question but it would seem it would be purely a tax on the ability to pay (progressive, not the current somewhat regressive tax) and distribute, like health care, on the basis of need -- a basic minimum, higher as a person's expenses are higher based on certain  formulae.  It would tax the rich much more heavily.  Would this pass today?  No.  Should it be pursued? Not in the foreseeable future.  There are so many things that SHOULD be pursued and the answer with the Social Security system is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  The Repugs are doing everything they can to break Social Security AND Medicare, so that they would need to 'fix' them, and then eviscerate them the same way they broke them --- by being tricky [suppressing the Democrats under misleadership devoted to getting with the program and such glories as eggplanting combined with indignance, and laundering].  Getting rid of the Democratic Party misleadership is the key to getting a winning progressive leaning party, mildly authentically liberal -- not even remotely progressive -- that almost all Democrats want, or want something stronger.  But almost none want Democrats who just 'report for duty' and don't expose the Repug spins.  This is a so-called "mandate" from above,  one that serves the interests of power and golden parachutes, not of the Constitution and of mass Democratic constituencies.

Perhaps we need to think more broadly and question how much wealth as well as welfare are created by inputs of public spending.  For every conservative who claims to be a self made man I'll bet we can chip away a very large investment of public resources in the making of that wealth.  You don't have to think too deeply -- public education, public health departments, police, fire protection, military spending, streets and highways, FAA, the courts, etc.  Of course, many conservatives would argue that many of these roles should be privatized, but the simple fact is that much of this public spending has contributed to the weatlh accumulation by private individuals.  Public contributions not only keep some above the floor of poverty, but also keep many wealthy people in the upper crust. 

We have found a balance between extreme socialism and extreme capitalism that has for the most part worked pretty well.  We do not need to suffer through all the ravages experienced during the 19th and 20th centuries to relearn what works and what doesn't.  If the wealthy do not want to participate, see how long they can survive behind the walls of their gated communities.  For the rest of us, we have to live in this world and find what works best.  Create and adapt to changing conditions and not be blinded by ideology.  Not with the left, not with the right, with the imperfect middle. 

Of course individual effort and ambition make a tremendous difference.  But you cannot discount each individual's starting position, parenting, community foundation, family connections, educational institutions, the need to start out as a borrower vs. an investor, etc.  If everyone were born equally and given the same opportunities, clearly some would end up wealthy and some destitute.  But the chances of achieving wealth are much greater if the starting point is the finishing line.  And the chances of moving up the ladder from the bottom rung are steadily eroding.

My main point is that there is a large footing of public investment that supports both the poor, the middle and the wealthy.  There is a tangle of both liberal and conservative values that factored into making this system work as well as it has. 

Well formed questions prompt innovative answers. Bad questions lead you on a snark hunt. Good answers to a bad question are useless.

The question should be: What is possible, with the current electorate, that would most benefit the American people, and would be impossible for the conservatives to undo?

Healthcare. It even solves some of our competitiveness problems, vis a vis foreign auto makers. 

I'd create Social Security pretty much the way it is now!  See http://ecolanguage.net/ for a fun little web-movie on some reasons why.  

In words (not moving-symbols,) it is a very simple transaction and it is shared society-wide.  This makes it difficult to scam, politically formidable, and has very very low transactions costs.  It provides an understood baseline in a world of increasing complications.

--Lee A. Arnold

So this post reminds me of this essay by John Gray--Joe Republican.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=144

<span class="smallText">August 29th, 2004 9:38 pm</span&gt
<span class="titleText">Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican</span&gt

by John Gray
Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)
He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)  Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

i think SS is a great opportunity for someone to articulate what the liberal philosophy is, what the conservative philosophy is, and why, although they may have good intentions, conservatives just don't get it. (that's being very generous about conservative motives, but that's the whole point- it's easier to get people to agree with you if you don't seem to be demonizing your opponent)

Sustutute the words universal health care for SS and you have the same great opportunity.

We don't have to restrict ourselves to a single issue.  We should a highlight a  few top priority issues, not a long grocery list of what we want, but I do believe health care should be at or very near the top of that list.