Bush and Social Security

Bush's plan to privatize part of Social Security really bothers me for three reasons:

1. The problem with Social Security is that the program will stop taking in more money than it gives out in the near future, eventually causing bankrupcy. Bush's "solution" of allowing people to put some of their Social Security contributions into private accounts means even less money will get into the Social Security system. This will not "fix" this problem, in fact it will cause the program to go bankrupt faster. Can someone please explain this to Bush for me, because he doesn't seem to understand this basic concept.

2. The idea of "Social Security" is that society provides for elderly people/disabled/etc. Private savings accounts are just that and shouldn't even be called "social security" -- a more appropriate name would be something like "mandated private security."

So the real question is: Do we think Social Security, defined as a program where society takes financial care of those who are too old or sick to take care of themselves, is something that should be maintained and fixed, or scrapped entirely? Why hasn't anyone asked this question yet?

3. Private accounts are fine for those who know about the stock market, mutual funds, and all that, but most people know nothing about the financial world. Privatizing social security contributions only benefits rich people who know about the stock market already.

You can say it's an individual's responsibility to learn about investments, but try to be realistic. I don't really see my hick hunter-type Uncle Joe attending a mutual fund seminar anytime soon. I can see him now: "This is some good venison jerky, wanna hear my Mr. Hanky impression? Hiiiiiidey Ho! Oh, and did you hear that index funds are a great investment tool, especially the no-load funds with low management fees?"