> And it probably isn't fair to really put social security in that category, because it is (sort of) self-funding (or at least, if you eliminated social security, that wouldn't just free up money to spend elsewhere).

thats their argument. if you take the ss tax away and privatize it then the wallstreet custodians get to play with it in market.. plus lower taxes and more fees for WS. one more thing , anytime you change the rules of the game you get to define the problems you are going to address and the problems you'll turn the blind eye to. so very high possibility of rigging the game. IMO even if you want to privatize SS current congress is the worst one to be allowed to.

> the wallstreet custodians get to play with it in market

More like they get to siphon off a percentage as rent seeking leaches.

Social security and Medicare aren't self funded, that's the problem.

Social security is for the most part. The problem is that they were required to invest the fund in treasury bonds, which mean congress "borrowed" them money and spent it. As the boomers retire and get their due, that money will have to be paid back. But congress will see that as a budget shortfall and complain about some "entitlement program".

No, social security is running an actuarial deficit. The older generation, which is already richer than the general population, is extracting money at an unsustainable rate.

They are redeeming their bonds. The government spent the surplus on other things and issued IOUs to the SSA. Now they're just pissed that they're being called on to pay it back. This is not really a debate - Alan Greenspan even said these bonds are real assets of the fund.