And saying, "everyone must provide their own social security insurance" is abolishing the Social Security system. The formers goal is the latter.

I am not changing the subject at all, only providing a very illustrative analogy: Privatizing Social Security would result in 1) a federal law that 2) requires all adults 3) meet future costs now with 4) money they do not have, despite 5) no guarantee of receiving ANYTHING later and 6) little to no federal help meeting the federal requirement. That is just Obama/Romneycare for Social Security; when all the same flaws exist, it is unclear why what was so unconscionable for health insurance is suddenly a great idea for social security insurance. The only reason that comes to mind is the same one that loomed large during the healthcare debate: Republicans around the country embraced a GOP governors policy as their savior then declared it anathema when a Democratic president implemented it nationally the way Romney promised in his book. Maybe I should have Obama suggest privatizing Social Security so Republicans turn on THAT awful idea as quickly as they did the other.

If "the most dire of urgency and necessity" is the requirement for a federal entitlement, I think making sure invalids and/or the elderly do not clog the roads with their corpses once they cease being profitable to private industry qualifies. I am fairly certain you do also; we are not debating the NEED for social security insurance, but the best way to meet it. Acknowledging the undeniable need by requiring people meet it on their own, while making very clear they ARE on their own adds insult to grievous injury. I mean, everyone needs food and shelter, too; why not pass a federal law requiring everyone to get them, and penalize anyone who disobeys? The real problem here is money; why not impose a federal tax penalty on everyone "unwilling" to live above the poverty level? This conceit only those too lazy to take care of themselves die slow tortuous deaths is no longer merely disingenuous: A decade into recession, it is dangerous. People who lost their jobs and homes to the banking and housing disasters then spent a couple trillion tax dollars bailing out the industries responsible will not forever tolerate being told it is all their fault when they know better.

Privatizing the federal Social Security program would not abolish the CONCEPT of social security insurance, but would restrict its availability to those able to provide it for themselves. Were that enough to cover all or even most Americans the federal program would never have been created; people were perfectly able to invest money for retirement in the '20s--IF they had it to spare. Likewise, we already have private retirement accounts with untaxed contributions (IRAs and 401(k)s, the latter usually including some employer contributions) yet they are so inadequate many people still barely (or almost) scrape by on Social Security. Let us be honest: Perry proposes adding NOTHING to the social security equation, but instead removing virtually all of it. He would "fix" Social Security like a vet "fixes" a broken legged horse or a dogs testicles, which is usually my objection when Republicans talk about policy "reform." I know "reform"=/="abolition," but it is an uphill battle convincing Republicans committed to the principle all things federal are bad.

I knew how the GOP felt about the New Deal long before Perry called Social Security a monument to its "failure," but America is not so ignorant a majority wants to return to the Depression (only ignorant enough not to know Hoover coined the term "trickle down theory.") There is nothing wrong with the Social Security that could not have been fixed by not borrowing from it for twenty years, as many (but clearly not ENOUGH) people warned throughout that time. People kept telling us the bill would come due when Boomers retired; they have, and it has. We have ALREADY increased retirement age as Perry proposes, but barring a large non-crippling revenue source it might be wise to do so again since life expectancy has risen in the eight decades since Social Securitys creation. That does not make it a "failure," and calling it a "Ponzi scheme" ignores the facts that

1) Many of those paying in will die before ever collecting a dime of benefits and

2) The number of people paying in will be constantly replenished by the millions of new people entering the labor force each year.

The only major "reform" Social Security needed, however, has already been applied by circumstances: With no money left in the trust fund, we can no longer borrow from it to cover our debt; now we simply need to pay back the $2 trillion we owe the trust fund (the federal governments largest creditor.) Telling the elderly people who financed the two decade long spending spree that they must now tighten their belt would be reprehensible. It is one thing when gramma sends a $10 bill for one birthday and it gets spent on comics; it is quite another to sneak into her house at night with a mask and gun to simply TAKE it.