Response to Rich Lowry

In answer to your question, no. It's a bad idea in it's current form anyway you slice it.

Interesting to suggest it, especially in a magazine that once featured this.

*UPDATE* Need a reason why? Okay, how about this:

The Bush administration has signaled that it will propose changing the formula that sets initial Social Security benefit levels, cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades, according to several Republicans close to the White House.

*UPDATE AGAIN* Or how about this?

Under the main plan offered by Bush's commission, promised benefits would be cut almost in half for some younger workers, with reductions ranging from 0.9 percent to 45.9 percent. Investments in the personal accounts are counted on to make up the loss in income.

Cuts would occur by changing the formula used to calculate benefits. Growth in benefits would be slowed dramatically by tying them to inflation rates instead of wages. The rate of inflation grows more slowly than wages over a person's lifetime.

(snip)

"Drastic benefit cuts and the false promise of private accounts are recipes for disaster," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Republicans keep saying that Social Security won't be there for today's workers - and if they get their way, they'll be right. The Republican proposals put forth so far do not make Social Security stronger. They make it weaker."