Here, from Slate,
is a piece about Social Security reform by Steven Landsburg, a Rochestor economics professor who is more conservative than many. Most of the piece is devoted to explaining that much of the Social Security debate is besides the point because old people in the future will always be able to demand benefits. (I don't think this is true, for reasons that Burger can guess at, but whatever -- assume it's true.) Says, Landsburg, the important question now is whether we can ensure that we're better off in the future by saving more now.
- In other words: If you want to address the Social Security crisis of the future, you must adopt laws that encourage saving in the present. There's nothing else you can do.
OK. But then here's the part I don't get, the rest of the piece (in its entirety):
- Which brings us to the president's proposal for private accounts. I like that proposal for three reasons. First, it will encourage people to save. Second, it will give people choices, and choices are good. And third, it will give more voters a stake in the capitalist system, making them more likely to vote for the sort of pro-growth policies that will improve the quality of life for us in our old age and our grandchildren.
What really matters, though, is not private accounts. It's the saving and pro-growth policies that private accounts will encourage. If we can get the same things in other ways, that's just as good.
But what the president proposes won't "encourage people to save." He's talking about
borrowing huge sums of money to set up private accounts. This is not saving more -- it's opening a credit line to move money into a savings account, and fooling yourself into thinking you've made yourself better off.
What am I missing?
