The Social Security role model

I'd read about the so-called "Galveston option" before, used by some to cheer on President Bush's privatization plan. Turns out the options not that great:

"I didn't come out ahead," said Evelyn Robison, who was the Galveston District Court clerk for 13 years before her retirement in 2004. "My chief deputy did not come out ahead. My bookkeeper did not come out ahead. I personally don't know anyone who has retired who came out ahead."

(snip)

Two separate studies of the Galveston plan conducted in 1999, by the Social Security Administration and the federal General Accounting Office, each concluded that many low- and medium-income workers actually fare worse under the Galveston plan than they would have under Social Security, while the highest-paid employees do better.

"Our simulations found that low wage earners retiring today generally would have qualified for higher retirement incomes had they been under Social Security," the GAO report stated. "Many median wage earners, while initially receiving higher benefits under the (Galveston plan), would have eventually received larger benefits under Social Security because Social Security's benefits are indexed for inflation."

The Social Security Administration study found that a low-income married worker who retires in 2045 would receive just $670 per month under the Galveston plan, as opposed to $1,139 under Social Security. The highest-paid single workers, however, would earn $1,515 per month more under the Galveston model than under Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration calculations.

The guy who designed and still runs the plan says otherwise:

"In every case we ever looked at, people end up better off in our plan," said Gornto, president of First Financial Benefits.

(snip)

"I think what we have here is a model for the rest of the country," said Ray Holbrook, a retired Galveston County judge and one of the original proponents of the plan. "The philosophy behind it is that we're better off if we fund our own retirements."

So you can judge the plan based on actual people who have seen the failure of the plan, or you can trust the guy who created the plan and talks about the "philosophy" of it all.

Which seems more reliable to you?