raphic trends, however, even staunch defenders of Social Security now acknowledge that it is time to talk about change. A spirited bipartisan debate is raging, in Capitol Hill and across the nation, over a handful of possible changes all of which were considered unthinkable a few years ago: Cutting benefits across the board (or just for the wealthy); Raising the payroll tax across the board (or just for the wealthy); Raising the age at which retirees become eligible; Investing the trust fund more aggressively; Letting workers contribute to personal security accounts that the government would manage (or that workers would manage themselves). Privatization Proposals that call for investment in the private sector get most of the attention. One school of thought calls for the system to invest some of its money in the financial markets, instead of in relatively listless government bonds. Supporters say that would create a windfall; opponents say it’s too risky. The most dramatic proposals would have workers place the bulk of their payroll taxes in individual retirement accounts that they could invest as they choose. Champions of this idea – mostly but not exclusively conservatives and libertarians – say it would boost returns and restore workers' faith in the system. A more moderate approach calls for the individual accounts to supplement a system that would be similar to the current one. More Than Just a Savings Plan Radical privatization would end Social Security as we know it. Social Security is not simply an investment vehicle or a pension program – and never has been. Today, Social Security provides benefits to about 43 million Americans, not only to retired workers but also to the spouses and dependents of workers who die prematurely and to disabled workers and their dependents. Social Security looks to many people like a simple (if massive) retirement savings account. After all, you generally contribute through...
