With all the attention being heaped on the nuclear option this week, it seems the privatization effort has been given short shrift, even by its usually indefatigable cheerleaders. It is a good time to revisit some of the major themes of the campaign.

But first, let's visit our old friend Star Parker -- who made her mark as the Frederick Douglass of Social Security privatization by repeatedly comparing the retirement system to slavery (last item). We teased her for "keeping it real," but her real-ness shines through in this rare moment of off-message bluntness:

What is the point of personal savings accounts (don't even think about calling them private accounts)? Are they supposed to strengthen Social Security? Or, are they being proposed because Social Security is a bad deal and Americans should be permitted to keep and invest their money for retirement?

Is it any wonder that the American people are confused? What are they supposed to do with a confused message that says, on the one hand, the system is broken and a bad deal for working Americans and, on the other hand, that we need to strengthen and save it? (Star Parker, "Getting the message out on Social Security," Town Hall, 5/16/05)

Finally -- a Privateer comes out and states the obvious: that "personal accounts" or whatever they're calling them today are a method of "phasing out" the public insurance system. It should be obvious, really, since by diverting one third of a worker's Social Security taxes to an individual account, there is correspondingly one third less money going into the traditional shared-risk system.

Now, you might think Social Security is too big a program. I imagine that's what's going on in the heads of most Privateers -- like the people at the Cato Institute and Le Club for Growth who are devout, playpen "libertarians." For example, we noted William Buckley complaining (second item) that the system is too generous -- that's news to the millions who are kept out of poverty, but it's certainly a natural conclusion from the assumption that Big Gummint Bad.

Unfortunately for them, that kind of argument just will not fly with Americans who have been paying in to the system their entire working lives, with the promise of risk-free, adequate retirement security -- a promise, by the way, that the market cannot make. People may like the sounds coming out of "big government" critics, but when push comes to shove, Social Security is extraordinarily popular. As insurance, it is anything but a "bad deal." So Privateers have a problem selling the "Ownership Society" on the basis of anti-government ideology.

Privateers' second fundamental problem is one of timing. Phasing out Social Security requires an enormous amount of cash, because the system runs mainly on an intergenerational promise, or pay-as-you-go, where today's workers fund their parents' benefits. If you want to switch this system off and have today's workers pay into an account designated for them (Privateers call this, ironically, a "fully funded" system), you have to borrow trillions upon trillions of dollars to pay benefits for the older generation of retirees. In Bush's one-third phase-out, this gap or "transition cost" amounts to five trillion over just the first 20 years.

And Privateers couldn't have picked a worse time for this catastrophic experiment. Not only are we on the cusp of the Baby Boom retirement -- the "pig in the python" of demagraphic imbalance, which led to our creation of the Trust Fund in the first place, and when the system will bulge with retirees needing benefits and exacerbating the gap -- not only that, but according to the very same pessimistic Trustees' projection used by Privateers to advance their "crisis" mentality, our economy as a whole will be in a slump. It would be a time when we would want more than ever the security of a defined-benefit retirement insurance program.

Of course, we believe that the American economy will stay afloat, somehow. If all we do is match half of last year's productivity, then Social Security will easily take us through the rough patch ahead. In fact, just about the only thing Bush could do to permanently screw it up is to cut off one-third of its funding while doubling the national debt and risking our ability to pay even the interest. Unfortunately, along with cuts in defined benefits, that's exactly his Social Security plan.

* * *

OK, enough editorializing. We have been keeping tabs on the privatization campaign for four months now. Here's a recap of the phony math and frightening ideology that came out and will continue to come out of the mouths of the Privateers.

Social Security Recap

Prologue: A rough guide to your personal account (1/25/05). The president can't stop gabbing about private--uh, I mean "personal accounts." The language can be a bit confusing, so we put together this little guide on what to expect from the "Ownership Society."

Week I (2/7/05). Bush unveils his plan -- but forgets to address the supposed solvency "crisis"!

Week II (2/11/05). More on the "crisis," on "bankruptcy," and a little thing called transition costs. Plus: the hollowness of "ownership."

Week III (2/18/05). Bankruptcy, transition costs, and ownership. Plus: is Social Security bad for blacks?

Week IV (2/28/05). Where's the Trust Fund? Alvin!!! Plus: the magical, mystical stock market will give us all a free lunch while the rest of the economy tanks.

Week V (3/7/05). USA Next, a corporate lobbying shell turned "seniors group," takes on AARP. How ugly do they get? See our sidebar: Charlie Jarvis, evil bastard.

Week VI (3/12/05). Is privatization really good for the poor? Plus: can the government welsh on your benefits? And where's that darn Trust Fund?

Week VII (3/18/05). You can't criticize Bush, because he hasn't presented a "plan." But Democrats are do-nothing whiners, because they haven't presented a "plan." Which non-plan is better? Plus: what's the deal with this supposed solvency crisis, anyway?

Week VIII (3/25/05). The trouble with "life-cycle" accounts: almost everyone loses. Plus: is Social Security an "investment," or is it insurance? And Star Parker on slavery.

Week IX (4/1/05). The updated Trustees' Report: actually, it's good news, although you have to read the fine print. Plus: is the surplus "spent"? And "keeping it real" with Star Parker.

Week X (4/8/05). Our president takes us on a surreal trip around the persistence of memory. Fact: those cute little Trust Fund bonds are backed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Plus: what do private pensions teach us about Social Security? And how about that free lunch again?

Week XI (4/15/05). Lessons learned from Chile and Galveston. Plus: yes, we will have to pay back those Trust Fund bonds -- and no, it's not a big surprise. And will you guys please quit it with the slavery metaphor!!

Week XII (4/22/05). Privateers' Golden Oldies: the Trust Fund and African-Americans.

Week XIII (4/29/05). Bush unveils "progressive price indexing" -- a world of pain and bad numbers. A preview, with an interlude on welfare.

Week XIV (5/6/05). More details on "progressive price indexing": a massive cut for the middle class, which doesn't even improve on the do-nothing plan. Plus: two perspectives on Privateers' ideology.

Week XV (5/13/05). We revisit "progressive price indexing" -- no, it doesn't achieve "solvency" under the dire assumptions everybody seems to use. And no, it isn't "means testing" -- it's the opposite. But apparently there's a sucker born every minute: a "courageous" liberal speaks out against Democratic "demagoguery."