The past few weeks, the president's red hot privatization boondoggle has managed to slip from the news cycle, as the filibuster fiasco and the Downing Street Memo drown out Bush's pet project. Even the right-wing commentariat, normally reliable for repeating the privatization talking points, have let things slide.

But Bush won't let his disastrous plan die in peace. In fact, he is continuing his permanent campaign, wandering around the nation with a bull-whip, looking for dead horses. He admitted his general strategy:

See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (President Bush, 5/24/05)

And there's been loose talk of a compromise, whatever that means. The senators who reached the filibuster deal are basking in the afterglow, and some are waiting for another opportunity to show off their bipartisan feathers:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Social Security, do you think the president's plans for some kind of personal accounts has a better shot now?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: It has a shot versus no shot. And watch this group of 14 to come out with some deal for Social Security.

MATTHEWS: Really?

GRAHAM: Just keep watching. (Hardball, 5/23/05) (via TPM)

The problem is that Bush has made it abundantly clear that he must have private accounts. And even if he doesn't get them to be carved out of the traditional system, even "add on" accounts (IRAs, except, uh, different somehow), they will likely become tax havens for those who can stuff the most in them rather than vehicles for building modest savings.

MYTH: Private accounts cost nothing, save money

But the fact is that there's really no downside to PRAs, because if a worker wanted to remain in the traditional Social Security system (and thus remain dependent on the government to finance his retirement), he could do so. But it seems unlikely many people would remain in the traditional system, because they'd want control of their own future. (Rich Tucker, "A storm brewing," Town Hall, 5/21/05)

The question of the hour is: If personal accounts don't solve the problem, why are we talking about them? The quick answer is PRAs were never meant to be a silver bullet, but they are essential to any viable reform package....

Under most reform proposals, PRAs do not shore up the solvency problems on their own. After all, it is unlikely any one measure can shore up the system and still provide the same quality of life we've all been promised. However, saying they "do nothing" is entirely inaccurate.

... Over time, as workers with personal accounts retire, Social Security's obligations are reduced. Thus, Bush-style personal accounts alone will reduce Social Security's costs by about 10 to 15 percent over the next 75 years, and more than 20 percent beyond the 75-year horizon. (Pete du Pont, "Essentials of reform," Washington Times, 5/23/05)

REALITY

These Privateers should be arrested for false advertising. Sure, Bush's PRAs are "optional" for the worker -- but not for the country. Even if a worker chooses not to take the PRA, he or she will probably see his or her benefits cut, and more worrisome, see catastrophic level of debt accumulated because of the gap.

We've talked about the gap -- otherwise known as "transition costs" -- before. The basic problem is that in order to divert payroll tax money from the Social Security system to some kind of private account, you have to take money away from the traditional system. At the same time, you have to keep paying benefits for current retirees, since the system is paid between generations. So yes, as Pete du Pont says, PRAs make Social Security smaller -- but by first stripping the system's revenue and putting us deep into debt.

Under Bush's plan, one third of the funding for Social Security would be carved out for private accounts, while full benefits are still being paid. That's an enormous hole -- about $5 trillion in just the first 20 years, and more after. The gap is significantly larger than the supposed "crisis" shortfall of $4 trillion over 75 years, a shortfall we would only see under 75 years of Depression-era growth. Oh, and as the president himself has admitted, private accounts do not even address that supposed shortfall.

And who will pay for these transition costs? The whole country, including that worker who "opted out" of PRAs.

MYTH: Social Security is unjust

According to a 2003 Housing Vacancy Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau in conjunction with the Current Population Survey, 42 percent of Americans 35 year old owned their homes compared to 80 percent of those 55 and older....

The bottom line is seniors are far richer than their midlife counterparts who are working and paying income taxes. They're being taxed to care for those who are not only less likely to be in the labor force paying income taxes but are wealthier than they. That's a particularly perverse form of income redistribution ...

There is less honoring of parents. Why? Through the tax code, children can force someone else to honor their parents. (Walter Williams, "Ripping off the system," Washington Times, 5/20/05)

It is not simply a matter of reducing the income available to potential givers. Welfare ­ including the welfare for the middle class known as Social Security ­ also taxes the purpose and the incentives for voluntary giving. When retirement is financed with money taken from the wages of strangers, and when aging parents are systematically relegated to state-funded nursing homes, a child's incentive to honor his parents with personal resources is greatly diminished, as are, of course, the resources themselves.

[... I]ntellectual honesty would require leaders of the contemporary left to admit that the Christian faith is incompatible with the ideology behind entitlement programs. (Roger Banks, "Democrats hijack Christianity," NewsMax, 5/29/05)

REALITY

First, the economic aspect -- we have discussed the mistaken notion that Social Security is somehow "welfare" here and here. The fact is, like the name ("Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurnace") it is insurance for people who work their whole life, i.e. most Americans who don't write columns for the Moonie Times.

The need for insurance is clear. No matter how much you prepare, no matter how much you save and invest, you could lose it. You might suffer on the stock market, or you might need the money for a child's operation. You might become permanently disabled, preventing you from working. You might live too long, running out of money, or you might suddenly die, leaving your spouse and orphans with nothing. Although you can and should prepare for retirement, you have no way of knowing how things will look when you get there. And you will probably be too old to pick yourself up by the bootstrap again.

What should be clear, also, is the role of a public pension rather than private investment. By sharing those risks across the working population, each worker has zero individual risk. If you work hard and pay into the system, when you retire, you can be sure of an adequate monthly pension, for as long as you live.

It makes sense, as Williams cites, that people who have worked all their lives have managed to pay off a house more often than those just starting out in the work force. According to his numbers, 4 out of 5 seniors own their own home. But as we've explained, when you start out, there is no way of guaranteeing whether you'll end end up in the 4 that do or the 1 that don't. Just like you don't know whether your house will burn down. Hence insurance.

Williams and Banks characterize Social Security as a transfer of money from young to old, but that's not the whole story. Those old people have paid into the system their whole life, too. And those young folks can expect the guaranteed support when they get old. The program is financed mainly pay-as-you-go, allowing us to take advantage of the rising standard of living over generations, but that doesn't change the fundamental character of Social Security as insurance.

We applaud Williams and Banks for encouraging us to honor our parents. We certainly try to, but even we can't individually provide the level of guaranteed, adequate support of Social Security.