I don't understand your logic. The Democrats were for a more expansive Part D, not a cheaper one. Do you think they're more enthusiastic about reforming Social

I don't understand your logic. The Democrats were for a more expansive Part D, not a cheaper one. Do you think they're more enthusiastic about reforming Social Security to make it a better deal for the young? They're certainly not for reducing cost-of-living increases through adoption of something like chained CPI. The most common Democratic policy prescription I've heard for Social Security is lifting the payroll tax cap, which certainly doesn't hurt current seniors or Boomers about to retire, but rather young people who have some peak earnings years in their future over the current cap. As to "privatization"-style reform, I think the theory was that the sorts of instruments available would have better long term yields than Treasuries (I'm actually rather skeptical of this). Higher yields would mean less future budgetary obligation, and you have to start somewhere, no? At the same time, the government could skim some of that excess off the top and use it to replace some of the redirected SS revenue. Yes, you would certainly also have to take money out of general revenue for a generation or two to cover the transition and/or any market swings, but money from general revenue is provided by our still (post-Bush tax cuts) highly progressive income tax, rather than a regressive payroll tax.