Kevin Drum writes:

I wonder if the final phase of this strategy is behind Bush's Social Security posturing? Maybe the plan looks something like this:

1. Bush proposes private accounts for Social Security.
2. As expected, Democrats go to the mattresses in opposition. However, in an effort to demonstrate reasonableness they all agree — almost in passing — that of course they have nothing against encouraging savings, but that it should be done in addition to Social Security, not in place of it.
3. After pretending to give it a good try, Bush counts noses, realizes he can't win, and reluctantly agrees to settle for tax-free private accounts on top of Social Security, just like the ones Dems say they have nothing against. Of course, this will be the Republican version of tax-free private accounts — big, unrestricted ones that mostly help the well off — but by now the Dems can hardly oppose a compromise like this, can they?

I would not be at all surprised to find out that something like this is in the works. So far Bush has never shown a whole lot of caring about traditional conservative values (the same way he's never shown too much interest in "family/religious" values, when he's not just using the rhetoric), but he has shown a lot of interest in finding new ways for the wealthy to not have to pay taxes. This would appear to be a really good way of helping the wealthy to not pay taxes.

What I haven't seen anyone ever explain, however, (and part of this is probably because no one has ever presented a "real" plan, just lots of vague ideas) is what the difference between these "new" private/personal/"individual investment" accounts (or whatever the nom du jour is) is and IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401-Ks, or other existing retirement type plans.