Defined Benefits

Josh Marshall takes a time-out from his yeomanly cataloging of individual Congressmember's and Senator's positions on Bush's Social Security proposals, to present an articulate explication of what is fundamentally wrong with Bush's plan. It isn't about the numbers not adding up, or the debt it would require. It's about converting Social Security from a 'defined benefits' plan to a 'defined contributions' one.

This is the article that should have gotten the space in the New York Times that went to publish Nicholas Kristof's op-ed last week. Marshall responds to Kristof, pointing out that the Democrats already have put forward an alternative to the Bush plan, which not only guarantees future benefits above those likely under Bush's plan, but also provides disability and survivor benefits that the Bush plan ignores entirely.

It's called Social Security.