I've been running across some good stuff on Social Security reform the last few days.

First, this post at Townhall.com: three columns by Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and George Will.

An excerpt from Will's column:

The president says Social Security should be reformed because it is in ``crisis.'' That is an exaggeration. Democrats say it should not be reformed because there is no crisis. That is a non sequitur. Social Security should be reformed not because there is a crisis but because there is an opportunity.

Here's another post on Townhall - excerpts from a David Limbaugh column, but it's the link near the end I find most interesting. A conservative group called Let Freedom Ring has a mathematical model that, they say, can predict the effects of various reform plans on Social Security's cash flow.

Here's the link to the charts of the two plans they've looked at so far (pdf file). Looks like Rep. Paul Ryan's is the way to go.

Speaking of Ryan, I heard him on Charlie Sykes the other day, talking about his plan. According to him, actuaries in D.C. have made some pretty amazing conclusions about it.

Here's an excerpt of something he told Forbes Magazine, which Sykes posted on his website (especially read the second paragraph):

...the official score of the chief actuary shows that ultimately, instead of increasing the payroll tax to over 20%, as would be needed to pay promised benefits under the current system, the tax would be reduced to 4.2%. This would be the largest tax cut in U.S. history.

If this proposal had been adopted in 1983, when the Greenspan Commission recommended tax increases and benefit cuts, Social Security would be expected to go into permanent surplus in 2008, workers would have accumulated over $10 trillion in personal wealth in their accounts – retiring with higher benefits today – and Social Security’s unfounded liability would have been cut roughly in half.

Wow. I want that more than I want tax reform.