SOCIAL SECURITY

February 2005
		President Bush's call for reforms to Social Security is part of a broader philosophical effort to promote an "ownership society" in the United States. Two experts answer your questions about the philosophical differences in the Social Security debate. Special Report: Social Security Reform

Forum Introduction After we baby boomers die off will the imbalance of workers to retirees correct itself? Why not just pay out less to those who have high assets? Why not just have the SSA invest a percentage of the current contributions in index funds? What happened to the "lockbox" idea? Has the Social Security trust fund been used for other purposes?	The idea of personal or private accounts in Social Security, that is allowing workers to control at least part of the funds they pay in taxes, is a cornerstone of President Bush's domestic agenda for his second term. The reform is philosophically part of an "ownership society" that enables Americans to keep more of their money through tax cuts and improve their child's education by making schools accountable. Critics of the voluntary personal accounts cite the high estimated transition costs associated with the accounts and have pointed to examples of workers who do poorly in 401(k) investing, to question the wisdom of allowing workers to invest in the stock market. They also contend that the proposal shifts Social Security from an insurance program that guarantees a set of benefits upon retirement to an investment program. But proponents say the personal accounts can yield higher returns than traditional Social Security benefits and allow recipients to create a nest egg for their families. Dinesh D'Souza, the Robert and Karen Rishwain fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University, answer your questions about the principles of an "ownership society."