Does Cain’s rise end the third-rail curse?

posted at 10:05 am on September 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

For decades, Social Security has earned its status as the “third rail of American politics.”  Even before the Katrina disaster undermined George W. Bush’s second presidential term, he blew his momentum from the 2004 election on an ill-fated reform of the national pension system that relied on partial privatization.  Seven years later, one presidential candidate has called for a shift to the “Chilean model,” meaning a full privatization of Social Security — and he’s rising in the polls this past week.  Has Herman Cain ended the “third rail” curse?  Investors Business Daily thinks so:

Herman Cain’s victory in Florida’s straw poll is notable, among other things, for his advocacy of “Chilean Model” Social Security reform in a state filled with retirees. It ought to be a wake-up call to all candidates.

Aside from the insta-analysis about Cain’s victory being a protest vote against Texas Gov. Rick Perry, it’s worth noticing that — in Florida, no less — both Cain and Perry, who finished first and second in the weekend’s GOP straw poll, were the two most outspoken candidates about confronting the U.S. crisis in Social Security.

It completely ends the notion that addressing the issue of unfunded pension liabilities — in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare — is the third rail of politics.

Chile solved a huge fiscal problem by privatizing their pension system in the early 1980s.  As IBD reports, pensioners get about four times as much money as they would have from Chile’s failing system had it continued to be bailed out by the government.  It also easily outperforms Social Security with an average annual compound return of 9.23% since the 1981 conversion.  It also had the benefit of taking pensions out of the political arena, while allowing the Chilean government to shed an enormous budgeting albatross.

Can that work in the US?  Of course, but the question will be whether voters see our plight on Social Security as being as desperate as it was for Chile in 1981.  Mitt Romney’s proposal for a series of tweaks would probably solve most of the problems we see in the program, especially if retirement ages get indexed to life expectancy.  Voters might be more inclined to opt for evolutionary changes rather than revolutionary changes if they think the former will suffice. That’s still a positive change from the “third rail” curse, but I’m not sure that translates into a mandate for tossing out the old system altogether, even if it should be tossed, perhaps especially because of its political weight.

Social Security isn’t the real problem in entitlements anyway; Medicare is a much bigger problem, and no Republican candidate has addressed that in the debates.  We hear plenty of talk about repealing ObamaCare, but very little in the way of follow-up to that task.  Paul Ryan has a series of proposals on how to accomplish that, in part through greater private control, but the candidates haven’t done much to discuss the implications of the coming Medicare collapse and how to avoid it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

**blink** wha? Ed, dang it..what’re you doing?

ted c on September 30, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Promise to appoint her (somewhere, anywhere, DC dogcatcher, whatever) if elected and Cain would roll to a victory that would put Reagan to shame.

Bishop on September 30, 2011 at 10:09 AM

I’ll apply that Chilean model to my life anyday!!!!!!!

search4truth on September 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM

If there was ever a time for somebody to get the resize wrong on the picture…

cozmo on September 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Mmmmmm, Chilean models…I mean privatized Social Security.

NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Sudden spike in emigration from U.S. to Chile because of…retirement benefits….yeah that’s it.

Bishop on September 30, 2011 at 10:13 AM

What does Fabio have to do with this?

Anyway, I don’t see why the ups and downs of the private investment world are scarier than having elected officials steal all of the pension fund money and buy votes with it.

forest on September 30, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a series of tweaks would probably solve most of the problems we see in the program, especially if retirement ages get indexed to life expectancy.

I don’t see any Republican implementing that, particularly a squish like Mittens.

Doughboy on September 30, 2011 at 10:17 AM

I think Cain could at least make serious headway with this, if not win outright. Who ever is the nominee, have then bring it up over and over, force Obama to swat down the idea of talking about it. Then our guy can say “Where do you put your turst? In a man who`ll do nothing and leave you with nothing? Or with me and the potential for greater benefits?”

And I know where Mark Sanford will be going on his next trip. :)

ThePrez on September 30, 2011 at 10:17 AM

I never should have divorced her.

Limerick on September 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Herman Cain has a successful model to point to that Bush didn’t bother with. The Dems will still say he wants to make it a casino, but again there is a successful model so that argument won’t be as powerful. Medicare? Tackle too much at once and you won’t win anything.

cartooner on September 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM

I’m sorry, what was the question?

ExUrbanKevin on September 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM

I never should have divorced her.
Limerick on September 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM

I feel bad for wooing her away from you, though it’s understandable why she would dump you for me.

Bishop on September 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Another advantage of the Chilean system is that you own it. If you pass away before you have used it all, your family inherets it.

J. Max Wilson on September 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM

This is what Cain needs to do – campaign with Chilean models.

Red Cloud on September 30, 2011 at 10:22 AM

The play on words is even more delicious when one sees the click potential of the chosen photo.

Vashta.Nerada on September 30, 2011 at 10:22 AM

In all fairness Ed, perhaps you could alternate the picture with the Chilean version of the guy that was in that 90s Diet Coke commercial.

TxAnn56 on September 30, 2011 at 10:22 AM

If there was ever a time for somebody to get the resize wrong on the picture…

cozmo on September 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Folks, we have a winner. I love this community :-)

ulyses on September 30, 2011 at 10:23 AM

but the candidates haven’t done much to discuss the implications of the coming Medicare collapse and how to avoid it.

We’ve got to expend our time talking up Tardasil and who’s book said what about what and whom and when and getting re-enforcing comments about Nirvana and continuing to blame 9/11 on ourselves. And don’t forget wasting untold amounts of pixels on people who aren’t even candidates.

Much more important stuff than SS or Medicare. /

catmman on September 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM

I’ve never seen Herman Cain look so hot…oh, wait.

vcferlita on September 30, 2011 at 10:27 AM

holy Chilean model Batman! Forget social security, I love the Chilean model.

hanzblinx on September 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Talk about pandering for traffic Ed!

OK, it worked on me too :-)

MJBrutus on September 30, 2011 at 10:29 AM

I don’t see why the ups and downs of the private investment world are scarier than having elected officials steal all of the pension fund money and buy votes with it.

forest on September 30, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Thank you. I’ve been saying this for years.

CantCureStupid on September 30, 2011 at 10:31 AM

How about the male Chilean SS model?

txag92 on September 30, 2011 at 10:33 AM

I remember an E. J. Dionne piece from around the time that Bush was arguing for privatization.

E. J. said Dems should fight it tooth and nail, because it would turn Social Security participants into Republicans.

How’s that, you say?

You see, if SS were privatized, citizens would have a (bigger) stake in the performance of the markets, and would be inclined to vote their interests; i.e., economic growth. Therefore, you know, Republicans.

Didn’t matter if this was a net positive for the citizenry, Social Security, or the country. The important thing was not to increase the ranks of Republican voters.

Purple Fury on September 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM

How about the male Chilean SS model?

txag92 on September 30, 2011 at 10:33 AM

That works better for me, as well. :)

CantCureStupid on September 30, 2011 at 10:36 AM

argh txag92! amn you! ;-)

SauerKraut537 on September 30, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Chile is smart. We are soft.

Kissmygrits on September 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a series of tweaks would probably solve most of the problems we see in the program, especially if retirement ages get indexed to life expectancy.

Maybe, at age 50 or so, we can each sit down with actuaries and government officials and figure out our life expectencies (life panels?); then raise the retirement age to just north of that and the problem is solved. No pay outs at all (for the retired) unless you beat your specific odds…

Nah, the Chilean pension model is better.

Fallon on September 30, 2011 at 10:40 AM

There are government guarantees for the following cases:
All citizens who have contributed to a fund for at least 20 years are guaranteed a minimum pension. The difference between the minimum pension and the pension entitlement from the investment fund is paid by government.
If a pension fund is unable to perform a defined minimum profit, it will be liquidated and the collected assets will be transferred to another fund. In this case, the government solves the assets gap.
In case of bankruptcy of a pension fund the government pays out the pensions on public expenses.

So a few people get filthy rich off of managing the funds, but when push comes to shove they are guaranteed by the government. Outside of the personal enrichment of the managers themselves, what’s the difference?

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Bait and switch, Ed.

Thats a crime. And in this case, a shame.

BobMbx on September 30, 2011 at 10:42 AM

The best thing about the Chilean Model is you own her, uh, it. The money is yours. When you die, it is passed on to your heirs.

A US black mail born in 1960 has a life expectancy of about 60 years. In other words, they get nothing back for all the money they put in. What happens to the money? It funds the SS of old white women.

It is hard to believe the Republicans can’t explain this to the American people. Social Security is a racist system that robs from black mails and gives to white females. It robs black families from being able to pass on this money to their heirs. Rich white people pass on their retirement to their heirs, but poor people remain poor generation after generation, partly because SS is not owned by the individual.

So bring on the Chilean Model. After all, she is optional.

huckleberryfriend on September 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

I never should have divorced her.
Limerick on September 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM

It was my idea.

BobMbx on September 30, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Also, this really ought to be referred to as the Pinochet model, so as to fit the “Obamacare/Romneycare” naming convention.

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Does the Chilean model account for the billions that people have already paid into the Social Security system – but isn’t there any more?

We could easily privatize if we had that money in the Social Security trust fund – but it’s not there anymore – only I.O.U.’s

HondaV65 on September 30, 2011 at 10:47 AM

How about the male Chilean SS model?
txag92 on September 30, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Take your sexist drivel and leave, we don’t need that here.

Ok guys, let’s talk about the Chilean broad some more.

Bishop on September 30, 2011 at 10:47 AM

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Higher rates of return. More control of your own money. Wealth transferred to your family upon your death and not absorbed by the government. Reduced spending by the government thus potentially leading to lower taxes. No longer a strawman social issue for liberals to run on.

Damn, privatized SS really sucks.

NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 10:48 AM

America has gotten a little soft hard…

PatriotRider on September 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM

All joking about Chilean models aside, I disagree with IBD — I don’t think Cain’s rise means squat about the plausibility of reforming Soc Sec with personal accounts.

There’s a huge difference between what is salable in R primary politics and what is legislatively practicable. Not only was GWB explicit in both 2000 and 2004 about his determination to create personal accounts, but up through Inauguration Day 2001 (which the press now conveniently forgets), there was actually a bipartisan consensus among experts in favor of them: see the support from such legislators as Moynihan, Kerrey, Breaux, Stenholm, and plenty of other D’s, including a majority of President Clinton’s advisory council. Even President Clinton was somewhat open; more open than D’s ar now. So nothing happening yet is unusually favorable to reform, at least in a historical context.

None of the favorable signs mattered in 2005 when a D Congressional minority saw political gains in blocking reform, and when the press turned to focus on whether D’s could hand GWB a legislative defeat rather than focusing on the substantive stakes involved. No reason that wouldn’t happen now.

The climate for fundamental Soc Sec reform isn’t better now, it’s worse. For various reasons. The less compelling reason is the market turbulence since 2005, but the press thinks this is stronger argument against reform than it s. The more compelling reason is that the baby boomers are now hitting the retirement rolls, so the opportunity for pre-funding their benefits is basically over. Financing the transition to a partially funded system is mathematically much harder than it was just six years ago.

I wish it were otherwise, but the only significance here is whether an R can talk about personal Soc Sec accounts in the primaries, and that’s not new — that’s been true for a decade.

Chuckles3 on September 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM

NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Fair enough. However, this is still essentially an entitlement program. The government is still potentially on the hook in the event that the market turns south and minimum payments cannot be made. The whole thing could also go bankrupt in which case the government takes over total control. You’ve all made many arguments for private accounts by attacking the theoretical underpinnings of a public pensions system at all – all this socialism talk. While this plan adds efficiencies, it’s still essentially socialist. Also, given the current naming convention, it ought to hereby be referred to as the Pinochet model.

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

huckleberryfriend on September 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Wow, that chilean model is givin’ me an american boner.

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

You’re not very bright, are you?

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a series of tweaks would probably solve most of the problems we see in the program, especially if retirement ages get indexed to life expectancy.

I’m glad you’re hopeful. I don’t think Romney will go to the mat on that.

csdeven on September 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Also, given the current naming convention, it ought to hereby be referred to as the Pinochet model.

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Question answered.

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 10:54 AM

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Why not call it that? It was his idea. Is it because he was a murderous dictator, is that why you don’t want to call it that?

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:56 AM

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Awww, whatever happened to “No Labels”?

Sadly, Alinky’s “the enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength” has taken hold too deeply with this one.

Fallon on September 30, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Outside of the personal enrichment of the managers themselves, what’s the difference?

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

The money is mine and is transferable to my family upon my demise. I don’t expect a progressive traitor like yourself to understand the right of ownership.

csdeven on September 30, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Also, given the current naming convention, it ought to hereby be referred to as the Pinochet model.
ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Why, we don’t refer to Social Security as the FDR Model.

Bishop on September 30, 2011 at 11:00 AM

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:56 AM

And hitler invented the volkswagon. – ernesto

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM

So we’ve had Bachmann’s “rise” and its “meaning,” Perry’s rise and its meaning, and Cain’s rise and its meaning. Didn’t Pawlenty have a brief “rise” of his own at one point and wasn’t its meaning duly mauled over?

rrpjr on September 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Didn’t Pawlenty have a brief “rise” of his own

Maybe in Ed’s imagination.

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM

The Chilean model looks fantastic — definitely hot. What were we talking about? Damn you Ed!

Kenosha Kid on September 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Having operated in Chile on a 6 month TAD assignment I just want to say that for less than $50 US…..and her mom will bake you a pie.

Alden Pyle on September 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM

And hitler invented the volkswagon. – ernesto
lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM

One of my wife’s sisters drives a Hitlerwagon?

Oof…this will not go over well when she finds out.

Bishop on September 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM

I think it’s funny how ernesto, who pretends to be a libertarian, is immediately skeptical of anything that doesn’t involve the government as the prime actor.

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Why not call it that? It was his idea. Is it because he was a murderous dictator, is that why you don’t want to call it that?

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Ever complained about the “ObamaCare” label?

And for f**k’s sake, Ed, at least give us a link to where you got that picture.

MadisonConservative on September 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Ever complained about the “ObamaCare” label?

No no no. You’re correct answer is “Every insane would be (or actual) dictator has a good idea. What the hell is Obama’s problem?”

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Bishop on September 30, 2011 at 10:47 AM

LOL! You always crack me up.

txag92 on September 30, 2011 at 11:12 AM

I think it’s funny how ernesto, who pretends to be a libertarian, is immediately skeptical of anything that doesn’t involve the government as the prime actor.

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 11:08 AM

From Wiki:

Under the influence of the free market-oriented libertarian Chicago Boys, the new government also implemented economic reforms, including currency stabilization, tariff cutting, opening Chile’s markets to global trade, curbing union power, privatizing social security, and the privatization of hundreds of state-controlled industries. These policies produced what has been referred to as the “miracle of Chile”, but leftists claim the government policies dramatically increased economic inequality.[9]

But the devastating effect of the 1982 monetary crisis in the Chilean economy can be attributed to the Finance Minister Sergio De Castro’s decision to peg Chile’s currency to the U.S. dollar – to align Chile’s high inflation rate with the U.S. inflation rate, but triggered a tremendous devaluation when the U.S. dollar fell, and set off a bank crisis.

Economist Milton Friedman, whose ideas influenced the Chicago Boys, criticized De Castro for his decision as it distorted markets.[10] Pinochet’s economic policies were continued and strengthened by successive governments after he gave up power and returned the country to democracy in 1990.

Chile is now the best-performing economy in Latin America, though academics continue to dispute the legacy of Pinochet’s reforms.

Fallon on September 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM

roy_batty approves of the Chilean model.

roy_batty on September 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM

“Social Security is a racist system that robs from black mails and gives to white females. It robs black families from being able to pass on this money to their heirs. Rich white people pass on their retirement to their heirs, but poor people remain poor generation after generation, partly because SS is not owned by the individual.”

Interesting statistically correct viewpoint. That Herman Cain is one clever guy, sticking it to Whitey with his promise of the hot Chilean model!

philw1776 on September 30, 2011 at 11:16 AM

sticking it to Whitey with his promise of the hot Chilean model!

philw1776 on September 30, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Well, it’s only fair…given that lots of whitey’s here want to stick it to the chilean model.

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 11:18 AM

You mean I would get to choose MY own people to run a plan?

And then compare their overhead with that of other organizations to see how much they have to take to run the place? Oh, wow! What a novel idea.

Next you will tell me that charitable organizations will be set up with what they pay their employees online plus what they take out for overhead, along with their return rates so I could get to decide between different investing models with different goals?

Yowza!

No wonders Leftists hate this idea: it puts them out of the graft pool and they aren’t able to terrorize people by bringing up an insolvent bogeyman as what they want to continue backing. Why all you would have to do is let people know that assets from such plans would not be taxed if they were in there for a minimum amount of time and were transferrable to their heirs… why… you could put all sorts of assets in there!

Spooky!

It almost sounds like letting people exercise their positive liberties with minimal or no interference from government.

Better than this Bismarckian system we got right now, that’s for sure. Or is it the Lloyd George/Beveridge system? Gotta get your coddling Nannystate references right for the A-R, you know.

ajacksonian on September 30, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I never should have divorced her.

Limerick on September 30, 2011 at 10:18 AM

It’s like I always say: “Somewhere out there is a guy who got tired of her crap.”

CurtZHP on September 30, 2011 at 11:22 AM

This is what Cain needs to do – campaign with Chilean models.

Red Cloud on September 30, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I’m guessing that if Cain gave a speech where he had Chilean models holding the charts explaining how his Chilean SS model would work, even my dear hubby would watch a campaign speech.

He’d probably turn the sound off like he did with Sarah’s speeches. But he’d watch. And anyone who campaigned with Chilean models would probably get his vote too. As he has often said “I always vote by looks, its the one thing they can’t lie about.”

Lily on September 30, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Wow! Nice. Now what was this thread about again?

Alabama Infidel on September 30, 2011 at 11:23 AM

You’re not very bright, are you?

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM

He’s dumb as a box of rocks, and stuck in his socialist mindset.

Ward Cleaver on September 30, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Sudden spike in emigration from U.S. to Chile because of…retirement benefits….yeah that’s it.

Bishop on September 30, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Hey, it motivated a South Carolina governor to go to Argentina.

thuja on September 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM

And hitler invented the volkswagon. – ernesto

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM

He said as he sped off to his Women’s Studies class in Mom’s Jetta…

CurtZHP on September 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM

The analytical part of me is wondering how such a beautiful woman who is so overly dressed on a beach can be so hot…while the other part of me is distractedly wondering what exactly the term “third rail” implies….

rwenger43 on September 30, 2011 at 11:43 AM

“Social Security is a racist system that robs from black mails…”

philw1776 on September 30, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Uhhh…

MadisonConservative on September 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM

I’m not sure whether most of Cain’s supporters really know what the “Chilean Model” really means.

Private saving for retirement certainly gives much better returns than government-run redistribution schemes, which take from younger workers to give to older retirees. We saw this in the early 1980′s when Reagan generalized tax deductions for IRA’s to the entire population, which led to a huge influx of money into mutual funds and a strong bull market.

But what about low-income people who pay Social Security tax but can’t afford to contribute to IRA’s and 401K’s? Don’t they have a right to higher returns?

George W. Bush tried a partial privatization of Social Security, and was demagogued by Democrats saying that the best way to save Social Security was…(drum roll, please!) to do nothing.

But we can’t privatize Social Security overnight. We can’t just cut off funding for millions of retirees who were forced to contribute 6% of their income to a Government program for decades. Any “privatization” plan needs to be both voluntary and gradual. Voluntary, meaning that people have a CHOICE of whether to invest their payroll taxes on their own (and forego SS benefits) or to stay in Government-run Social Security. Gradual, meaning that the amounts or percentage of payroll taxes that can be privatized must be on a sliding scale with age, with younger workers able to privatize more than older workers, so that current retirees will continue to receive benefits.

There may also be a need to increase retirement age gradually with birthdate, such as three months per year, to account for increasing longevity.

I’m not sure what Pinochet did in Chile, and he didn’t have to worry about elections with the Chilean army behind him, but has Herman Cain done the math and come up with a plan that will pay the bills for next 45 years or so, when today’s new college graduates will be retiring?

Steve Z on September 30, 2011 at 11:56 AM

a full privatization of Social Security — and he’s rising in the polls this past week. Has Herman Cain ended the “third rail” curse? Investors Business Daily thinks so:

This is the ONLY way to do it.

Anyone who talks about “fixing” Communism is a Communist. 99% of politicians offer the false choice between radical Communism and incremental Communism. It’s about time we had a real alternative.

logis on September 30, 2011 at 11:56 AM

I don’t see why the ups and downs of the private investment world are scarier than having elected officials steal all of the pension fund money and buy votes with it.

forest on September 30, 2011 at 10:16 AM

It would be extremely painful now to move to a Chilean model, while running the old prog model to some end point. I wonder however if anyone has ever run the numbers showing what we really would have if, when SS was invented, the money had always gone into a broad cast-in-stone formula of broad stock indexes and bonds.

Missing of course is replacement of the revenue from SS that was burned off by greedy government for other things. The investment would have a stimulative effect as well of course, though hard to predict.

slickwillie2001 on September 30, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Ed, do you have a picture of the Thai model? That’s more my type…

Khun Joe on September 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM

The one good thing about converting to a Chilean pension model is that we would never hear a power hungry freak like Øbama say to the invested retirees, on national television, “I don’t know if I’ll cut you a check next month if my demands aren’t met immediately.”
.
A neutered executive. How does that sound? I, for one, heartily endorse it!

ExpressoBold on September 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM

The money is mine and is transferable to my family upon my demise. I don’t expect a progressive traitor like yourself to understand the right of ownership.

csdeven on September 30, 2011 at 10:58 AM

The money is the government’s in the event the managed fund goes under. Still socialism. If you hate socialism, you can’t support this plan.

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

The money is the government’s in the event the managed fund goes under. Still socialism. If you hate socialism, you can’t support this plan.

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

IF the managed fund goes under, it would mean the entire economy has collapsed. That isn’t going to happen when we get the progressive ideologies out of government permanently.

csdeven on September 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

A sexy model is exactly how SS reform will happen.

The politician who convinces the public of how much better off they would be with privatized SS will be the winner, on so many levels.

Speakup on September 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

The money is the government’s in the event the managed fund goes under. Still socialism. If you hate socialism, you can’t support this plan.

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Well, in that case you should fully support the idea, correct?

Monkeytoe on September 30, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Too bad Obama is leaning toward the Argentinian model – confiscation of 401k’s.

John Deaux on September 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

“Social Security is a racist system that robs from black mails…”

philw1776 on September 30, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Uhhh…

MadisonConservative on September 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Autofill got me.

Or maybe since SS is a Ponzi Scheme, there is blackmail involved.

huckleberryfriend on September 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Let’s give credit where credit is due. If SS is no longer the third rail you have to thank 0 for part of it. Isn’t he the first president to ever indicate that SS benefits might not be paid timely? When he scared so many, they were more inclined to think of removing gov’t from control.

Oleta on September 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Does Cain’s rise end the third-rail curse?

No. We haven’t seen what happens if a SS reformer becomes a nominee or even a leading candidate yet.

elfman on September 30, 2011 at 1:44 PM

You’re not very bright, are you?

lorien1973 on September 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Lefties are more familiar with nuance.

Schadenfreude on September 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM

So a few people get filthy rich off of managing the funds, but when push comes to shove they are guaranteed by the government. Outside of the personal enrichment of the managers themselves, what’s the difference?

ernesto on September 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM

I get to pick who gets filthy rich off of my money not you. That is the difference. You and the rest of your moronic ilk are know different than the greedy fund managers the difference is that they’re honest about it. You pr!ck$ insist that you’re all about helping people and making the world fair.
How about the next time you sleaze balls run a social security privatization ad you tell the truth and say that Republicans want to give social security back to the individual instead of lying.

jdkchem on September 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Or maybe since SS is a Ponzi Scheme, there is blackmail involved.

huckleberryfriend on September 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Or male fraud.

BobMbx on September 30, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Chilean model suddenly hot?

Suddenly?

Jaibones on September 30, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Chilean model. Very funny. Keep your day job, Morrissey.

InterestedObserver on September 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM

I’m married to a Chilean model.

Johnny 100 Pesos on September 30, 2011 at 7:17 PM

The flaw here, Ed, is so far, Cain is scoring high among Republicans. Ask in the general where W tried his plan and see if Cain’s idea is still popular. Bush wasn’t pitching his reform only to Republicans in a primary, he was POTUS of the whole country when he tried it. It was damn good idea, too.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 30, 2011 at 7:22 PM

**blink** wha? Ed, dang it..what’re you doing?

ted c on September 30, 2011 at 10:09 AM

I’ve been victimized by my own biology.

Again.

Axe on September 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM