I wonder what the stock market decline, Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc. have done to the public's perception of the relative worth of privatization.

Nothing good I'll bet.

Having reviewed a number of studies concerning this issue, I feel confident in stating that the public is not inclined to reject public provision of goods and services in favor of privatization due to any idealogical adherance to strict free market philosophy.

Rather, the public is reacting to a perception of excessive waste in government bureaucracies; the eight hundred dollar toilet seats, lazy workers that know they can't be fired and those sorts of things.

Studies of government vs. private provision have shown that sometimes private is more cost effective and sometimes it's not. Which is better depends on the interplay of several variables. Such as the service in question, the region of the country, the economic environment at the time of the study.

Again, I look forward to reading the results of objectively designed polls being conducted right now.

Ed Crane better keep a close eye on his emails.

Just to blow my own horn for a minute, I have a work in progress on the abuse of the idea of individual choice by market populists such as the Cato Institute.

A recent draft is available at No One Makes You Eat At McDonald's. Any comments welcome.

The Cato Institute and cohorts mean to destroy social security and medicare under the guise of privatization or choice. That is the point - to end our dependence on the state by hook or crook.

Disgraceful.

FWIW, the Cato Institute would more properly be described as a libertarian think tank, as opposed to an arm of the Republican Party.

As for the anonymous commenter, he/she has hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head, except that what you call "disgraceful", some folks, myself included, call admirable and desireable.

It is quite amusing (not to mention, ironic) to see liberals deride the technique of "incrementalism". It was used by them so effectively over the past 100 years or so to implement Social Security, Medicare and other social programs, but now that the shoe is on the other foot.....

FWIW, the Cato Institute would more properly be described as a libertarian think tank, as opposed to an arm of the Republican Party.<<

In this case, it is functioning as such. The Republican Party doesn't want to refer to privatization schemes as such, and Cato (with some exceptions) is pretty much following right along. If they were simply a libertarian think tank, why would they care?

Libertarian thought is mere conservative Republicanism under a pretentious or deceptive rubric.

The Cato Institute always tows the Republican line and always represents the very wealthy against the middle class or poor. If the Cato positions reflect libertarian thinking, what rot the mess is.

This election is most important if we are to offset a push by Republican advocates to "privatize" social security and so assure that there will have to be benefit cuts for women and men soon to turn 65.

Also, there will be no drug coverage in Medicare if the friends of Cato have their way.

Social security and medicare have been a wonderful support for tens of millions of Americans. We must see that the programs are not harmed by arch conservatives.

What was incremental about Social Security and Medicare?

Social security and medicare were straight-forward responses to the needs of millions of Americans who deserved such protection as they grew older.

Imagine what it would be like to discard medicare and have medical costs reduce millions to poverty after they have served to enrich this country for decades.

Imagine what it would have been like for all but the rich to age in this country from the depression on with no social security.

Big deal, right? The McBride campaign is desperately trying to find a conspiracy where none exists."

Oh, please. The Bush administration just gave Cato's founder & funder the contract to deliver the oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Jason,

Social Security was not thrust upon us all at once. It resulted from a long process, and is most political change in this country (despite the history of our founding, we don't favor revolution as a means of change). Before the New Deal could be implemented, there were many battles, legislative and legal, that had to be fought and won.

Here is one quote that illustrates my point that incrementalism is not a new political tool:

"Many American socialists also strongly endorsed social insurance as a halfway measure to their ultimate goal. They has social insurance in their party platform since 1900. It was seen as part of a strategy of abolishing capitalism, or at least adopting the main elements of a democratic socialism.

'Modern socialists', wrote socialist leader Morris Hillquist in 1912, 'expect the realization of their program not as a result of a sudden revolt by the masses driven to desperation by suffering and misery, but as the outcome of a process of gradual, planned reforms to be achieved through concerted, intelligent and vigorous struggles, political and economic, conducted by a well-organized and powerful working class.'" [from "The Revolution of 1935: The Secret History of Social Security"]

Whether you are for or against the Social Security system, the history of how its proponents fought to get it implemented is a fascinating one. Most other social programs have similar incremental histories.

In my opinion, incrementalism is the nature of our democracy, it serves to slow down change to a manageable pace, and should be applauded, not villified.

Read the article. Crane explicitly attacks the Republican revisionist history toward the end, and more generally attacks a lot of Republican stances.

I think this indicates that the "big tent" is under considerable strain. The interests of evangelical christians, "libertarians", and politicians caught up in a contribution-soaked political process don't have much overlap.

One interesting question is how and why Crane would publically take a position that is so at variance with the Cato website revisions (and other Cato public stances).

Jed,

Is it that surprising that people on the Right have a variety of opinions on issues? It is one of the reasons they have a hard time advancing an agenda, if you ask me. The Left seems to be much more monolithic in their views.

I think Crane has a good point about the Republicans, but, unlike him, I think it also extends to the Democrats. The closeness of the margin in two houses has created a situation where all both sides care about is retaining their power, resulting in gridlock.

Wait a minute... that's a good thing!

The point is that Republicans are a serious threat to Social Security and Medicare. We must keep at least one Congressional House Democratic.

I find Dean's comments about the lockstep of ideologies on Left and Right quite comical, since it is the opposite of Conventional Wisdom - that the Dems have been in disarray since '68 because of so many competing "special interests", while the Prussian Repubs march into power. Now I'm not saying that CW proves Dean wrong; I'm saying that it's a bit absurd that he takes as a given a position that is ... less than commonly held. I think the burden of proof may rest on his shoulders to show that gays, blacks, jews, feminists, trade unionists, hispanics, and the other groups that are traditionally identified as the Dem base are monolithic.
But of course in a pluralistic democracy, the thing to be is diverse, and the thing to do is to accuse one's opponent of narrow-mindedness.

To speak in ethical terms only and not political ones, I'm surprised that anyone can honestly defend a program like Social Security. The reason that it shouldn't be abolished is that millions of Americans have spent much of their lives contributing to the system and deserve something back. The reason that it should be is that it takes a massive (~7%) portion of the paycheck away from many lower- and middle-class workers and effectively prevents them from saving for retirement on their own while taking that money and giving it to older (and often richer) retirees. The realized return figures on social security withholding I have seen have been around 2% annually -- meaning that this a type of saving that is generating negative real returns (ie, you could do a whole lot better sticking to a money market fund) -- an unbelievably low one.

So we are faced with a problem: an ethically and economically indefensible system that can't be changed except gradually. That's what the reformers are trying to do. If only the Democrats would be honest enough to propose their own version of reform for a system that -- given the increases in life expectancy and the decline in the number of years worked -- is not sustainable in the long-term (I would guess around 2030, but I'm sure there are different answers to that question).

Julian, those numbers are wrong.

Jason, Thanks for the link but I don't see anything in it that contradicts the information about returns I cited. So the system is a pay-as-you-go-system -- it still needs to be compared to individual accounts and the returns they are likely to generate. And the answer still is that they are a poor alternative.

I realize that this doesn't affect the question of how to provide for retirees or those near to retirement. That's a different question. The point I was making is that the Social Security system is an awful system and the sooner we try to reform it the better.

The Cato Institute is libertarian, which is not just a more "arch-" form of conservative. It is a different philosophy, it has a different epistemology. Is there a similar relationship between progressive and liberal, or is progressive just a more "arch-" form?

There are not that many libertarians who are Republicans in Congress. They are not that strong an influence in the electorate. If you compare issues with actual policy libertarians have not been faring that well. Bush's tax cut is tiny. $1.5 trillion projected over ten years out of $30+ trillion in projected spending. The drug war is in full swing. Adding religous charities to the dole expands gov't. Soc. Sec., Mediciad, Medicare grow as healthily as ever. Both parties support a prescription drug program. Very little has been privatized or closed down. Both parties passed ag subsidies.

'I realize that this doesn't affect the question of how to provide for retirees or those near to retirement. That's a different question. The point I was making is that the Social Security system is an awful system and the sooner we try to reform it the better.'

The costs of switching systems must be included in rate of return calculations. If you do so, "private accounts" and the current system provide roughly the same rate.

The obvious rejoinder to this is that the current system needs cash infusions/whatever to remain solvent. However, so would a privatized system.

I have a few big-picture posts about Social Security here that I think are illustrative.

Oh, and the last post here, whoops.

"The Cato Institute always tows the Republican line..."

Complete BS. Cato differs from the "Republican line" on:

1) Federal ownership of land (Cato against, Republicans support),

2) Agricultural subsidies (Cato opposes, Republicans, in general, support),

3) The war on some drugs (Cato opposes, Republicans support),

4) Potential war with Iraq (Cato opposes, Republicans support),

5) Federal legislation on partial birth abortion (Cato opposes, Republicans support),

6) I could name at least 100 more things, if I wanted to take the time. (These have taken me about 3 minutes to come up with.)

Mark Bahner (Libertarian)

"There are not that many libertarians who are Republicans in Congress."

Yes, Ron Paul of Texas is the only real unquestionable libertarian (i.e., former Libertarian candidate for President) who is a Republican.

But there are NO Democrats who are even close to being libertarians. (Libertarian = One who thinks that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect from physical force and fraud.)

"The Cato Institute and cohorts mean to destroy social security and medicare under the guise of privatization or choice. That is the point - to end our dependence on the state by hook or crook."

It's Social Security and Medicare that were brought by "crook." Both are completely unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers would be appalled by both.