So here's an interesting piece about how the administration is presenting a clear and balanced view throught the Social Security Administration's phone service:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 28, 2005
Contact: Kurt Gallagher
(202) 639-6491

Presents Evidence Bush Administration Used Trust Fund Follars to Promote Social Security Private Investment Accounts

SOCIAL SECURITY EMPLOYEES COUNCIL BLOWS WHISTLE ON AGENCY PROPAGANDA EFFORTS
(WASHINGTON) – On Friday January 28, officers of the National Social Security Council, which represents workers of the Social Security Administration (SSA), testified before the Democratic Senate Policy Committee regarding reports in the media that employees have been instructed to hype negative projections for Social Security and to promote privatizing Social Security.

Union testimony exposed ways in which SSA employees were instructed to promote the idea that Social Security is in a crisis and that private investment accounts are the solution to this financial situation. The testimony suggests that SSA may have violated federal law prohibiting agencies from using funds for propaganda purposes unless those funds are specifically designated for such use by act of Congress. Additionally, the testimony refuted recent White House assertions and a statement that SSA employees are now required to read, on behalf of Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart, in the event that they are questioned about the recent media reports.

"Previously, our employees had shared information with the public about Social Security's financial condition, but had never been encouraged to support any particular 'reform' proposal. In fact, they were always expected to remain neutral on political and legislative matters," testified Steve Kofahl, regional vice president of the Council and president of AFGE Local 3937.

"Over the years, through Republican Administrations and Democratic Administrations, there was one constant: the work of the Social Security Administration should not be politicized," testified Debbie Fredericksen, Council executive vice president, now, "frontline Agency employees are being instructed to provide the American public with information that is designed to promote the idea that Social Security is in crisis and that Social Security privatization is the answer."

"The use of SSA resources to advocate political positions is wrong and compromises the integrity and credibility of the Social Security Administration. The credibility problem becomes even more acute, when SSA employees are directed to make political statements that are untrue or exaggerated. This undermines the SSA mission to provide clear, accurate, and objective information to the American people about the Social Security system," testified Fredericksen.

Kofahl cited the effectiveness of the Agency campaign by describing a conversation with a taxi driver. Upon learning that Kofahl was an employee of SSA, the driver asserted that "it [Social Security] won't be there for me." When pressed as to why he felt that way, the driver explained that the "'Personal Earnings and Benefit Estimate Statement" he received in the mail from SSA told him so.

Documentation and evidence presented by the Council included:

• Official agency talking points stating, "Modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts to augment Social Security." (emphasis added by AFGE)
• An SSA Tactical Plan instructing employees to "deliver message through press releases, presentations at financial planning seminars and public events" and to "look for non-traditional locations…such as outreach events at farmer's markets, big box retail stores, etc."
• A 2-hour lecture by a SSA public affairs specialist given to insurance and financial planning professionals. The lecture covered the July 2001 report from the Social Security Advisory Board and 3 options proposed by the White House Commission to Strengthen and Preserve Social Security.

In response to calls to the SSA TeleService Centers (1-800 phone centers) commenting about the use of trust fund dollars to promote privatizing Social Security, employees have been instructed to read the following statement on behalf of SSA Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart:

"Thank you for your call. There has been a lot of misinformation in the media lately and I am glad to have this opportunity to set the record straight. I have never, nor will I ever, ask or direct Social Security employees to promote or advance any specific proposal for Social Security reform. Our job at Social Security is to provide services and benefits and to educate the American public about the programs and finances of Social Security. Again, thank you for your call. We look forward to continuing to serve you."

This is getting just too Orwellian for even me. When does the national media think it will get any of its integrity back and begin to report these things to the American people who clearly do not want this or any other program deisgned to protect them dismantled?

The problem is rather simple.

It's buying off on the transition costs.

Who's going to sign up for a project that may cost $6 trillion by 2030, if CBPP is correct?

Moving on this initiative, as presented, will kill the tax package.

This "Spruce Goose" will die quicker if major news media sources would focus on the larger issue.

The transition costs.

But who cares about transition costs beyond the first ten years?

Certainly not the GOP members of congress. I believe they've got the rules rigged in their favor, too.

Somebody ought to create a derrivative investment that is a future on a 50 year Treasury bond to sell now. Except, who would be willing to accept the interest rate risk on the sell side?

If someone is smart enough to build the argument for including all costs involved in creating this new goverment program, all transition costs would have to be put on the table.

Stopping at the ten year benchmark doesn't begin to address the costs.

Moreover, the loss of Social Security surpluses driven back to 2012 have to be added to the program costs as well.

Total transition costs is the issue, but it's not capturing much attention.

If a Member of Congress is serious about exploring the virtues and concerns of implementing a private accounts program based on the current proposal, all costs would be receiving proper consideration.

Simply put to the news media:

"It's the transition costs, Stupid!"

I'd say: all transition costs should be borne by those selecting personal accounts.

They'd pay an up front "legacy" fee, deducted from their personal account contributions, and then they would also agree to cut their traditional benefits by about 39%.

Why 39%? Old age benefits are funded by 10.2% of FICA tax; take 4 out of 10.2. That's 39%. We exclude the 2.2% going to the disability trust, since those benefits, we've been assured, will not be touched.

This gets you to a position where personal accounts wouldn't be subsidized; they'd bear their fair share of the cost to transition from the legacy system.

So the question is: what tax rate would someone have to pay to be allowed to "opt out" like this, to cover their share of the legacy cost, rather than shifting that cost onto traditional SS beneficiaries and the national debt?