President Bush proposed, to save Social Security, a Ponzi scheme destined to actuarily collapse in 15-20 years, proposed partial privatization. It was a good plan and would have worked, and would have been a step, once people saw how much they could make in the private sector investments, have led to total privatization. Thus all Americans would have become much wealthier.

But no, the Democrats couldn't have that!

So now we have Hillary Clinton proposing pretty much the same thing. She's floating the idea of "allowing" people to have a version of 401K to supplement their Social Security. Don't you love it when politicians "allow" you to do something like save for your retirement?

But there is a MAJOR difference between the Bush and Clinton proposals. Under President Bush's plan, you would have kept a percentage of money you earned and it would be placed into an account you owned.

Under the Clinton plan, the money would first be taken from you by Big Sister Government and then some of it given back to you to be invested.

Of course the government, in the guise of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, once claimed that SoshSec withholding would never apply to more than the first $3000 earned. Aren't there proposals from Democrats out there to remove the limit completely? Tax EVERYTHING!

And you do know that, despite whining by Democrats about how evil Republicans want to remove the guarantee that Social Security will always be there for old folk, that there IS NO SUCH GUARANTEE? There is nothing in the Social Security law or regulations which requires that the government actually pay you any set amount. Social Security is completely dependent upon the whims of the bureaucrats in power at any given moment.

Under Bush's plan, the worker would OWN a large part of his retirement account and thus would not be dependent upon government whim.

Under Hillary's plan, you'd still have to be holding out your hand to government to get your dole back so you could put it into a retirement fund.

Hillary's whole plan is designed to keep people dependent upon government rather than making them independent. And it would also effectively limit the amount of retirement savings a worker could count on. Wouldn't want people getting so well off that they couldn't be convinced t vote for more handouts, would we, Hillary?