Conda-dictory examples

Cesar Conda:

If the opposition to personal accounts is not simply partisan (and that indeed may be the case), then there are only two explanations for the arguments being advanced by certain Democratic leaders in Congress. One, they believe that Americans are simply not smart enough to be given the option to select from among a handful investments choices. (Note the word "option," since the accounts are voluntary). Two, those making the argument believe they can gain political advantage by scaring future retirees into thinking it's more likely they would be cast adrift in the sea without a compass, rather than, in reality, earning enough money to buy their own boat.

Or three, they see no reason that the common worker should have to risk future Social Security benefits on hopeful investments, because no one in any of Conda's examples is asked to do that now.

The fact the people invest now means nothing in terms of Social Security privatization. They two sides of the equation are unequal. As of now, anyone who privately invests and makes mistakes still has Social Security to fall back on. Under the proposed Bush plan, that safety net is gone. You invest and lose money, there is no Social Security insurance to help you. And that is the reason so many Democrats and sensible Republicans are balking at the President's proposal. And it is why this is a nonsensical argument:

Members of Congress ought to give younger workers the same opportunity that they have to build a retirement nest egg that government cannot take away. If, as Sen. Reid says, the Bush plan is "like Social Security roulette," then he should propose legislation to repeal the Thrift Savings Plan for federal government employees who are similarly exposed. But of course we know that Sen. Reid will do no such thing because it would elicit howls of protest from millions of federal workers.

Fine. Conda argues here is that Congress should give younger workers the "same opportunity," then they should allow everyone to participate in the TSP while still offering the same Social Security benefits. Repealing the TSP is an idiotic conclusion based on faulty logic. Just like private accounts in place of Social Security.