Where does the choice and ownership come from, if this money can only be invested or used at the sufferance of the Social Security Administration?

And why should we give anyone in Washington the power to decide which investments are allowable for such a staggering amount of money?

We need to contain the damage caused by our over-extravagant promises to future seniors. Limit benefits, hold down the burden on workers now and in the future, and leave them the rest of their money to use for their own purposes. Damnit, don't take their money to send checks to retired people and then take more money from them for so-called "personal" accounts. Let them keep as much money as possible, and use it to further their own needs and desires, the way that truly personal money should be.

That's what security, choice, and ownership is all about. Your money, used your way, without "parental guidance" from the Social Security Administration.

Nice rant Ken, and perfectly true.

But while nice in theory, it has no relation to anything do-able in practical politics right now. Whereas Bush is attempting something difficult but possible. And one where success, just as in Iraq, will start to change the culture of a whole region.

Bush isn't trying to save SS, he's trying to get the infantilized dependents of the welfare state to start growing up.

Also, "power to decide which investments are allowable" is a bit of an exaggertion. What will probably be allowed are broad-based packages such as index funds. That's not like the government "picking winners," or deciding that capital should go to a particular industry. That's just a common-sense measure when you are giving inexperienced people a chance to invest.