Cato is unabashed about killing Social Security entirely. They cite the SSA evaluation of Rep. Johnson's plan and note that "According to the official 'scoring' by the Social Security Administration of Rep. Sam Johnson's reform legislation, which is based on the Cato Institute's own Social Security plan, the bill "would eliminate Social Security's long-range actuarial deficit" and restore the system to "sustainable solvency."

Of course it does -- it completely eliminates the traditional retirement benefits (even as an option), replacing them with mandatory private accounts (and allows employees to "opt out" entirely when their private account will produce an annuity equal to 100% of poverty). It's also the only plan that will actually reduce the value of funds already contributed.

One piece of reading, relating to political strategy rather than the content of the plan, is "The 'Leninist' Strategy" (pdf). Some point to the rather Machiavellian tactics suggesting for winning political support (and how they have been followed since it was written, back in 1983), one can also note, with some irony, the success claimed for then new British plan to privatize, noting "It does seem that the price people are willing to pay to leave Social Security is substantial." Ironically, current events in Great Britain show just how substantial that price turned out to be, as Britain scrambles to undo the problems created by privatization there.

Less frantic than Cato and without a full blown plan, the Heritage Foundation offers the conservative argument for private accounts -- that they "will give workers much more flexibility to provide for their retirements and to build a nest egg for the future" -- and treats the current system as if it were solely a saving s program, but if one wants to understand or support the conservative position, this is probably the best source.

This is the special interest group, formed for this fight, that launched it's first attack by insisting that AARP was against soldiers and for gays. It doesn't get more mendacious than that.

(That it got even one book for breadth of knowledge is a flaw in the rating system -- we don't give zero books....)

AARP has a lot of links -- all to opinion pieces that support it's position (which is a lot like the President's -- everything is on the table except privatization). The difference is the president demands privatization and AARP refuses to consider it.

Without proposals of its own, the vast majority of the web site is directed at deconstructing the arguments of those who favor it.

Labeled a "liberal think tank" (by most standards, it is), CBPP is so factually scrupulous that Money Magazine selected one of it's scholars (Jason Furman, also campaign advisor to John Kerry and a professor at NYU) to project future benefits under various scenarios, because his was "the most complete and reasonable approach."/1/

It should also be noted that CBPP scholars Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag have proposed a full and comprehensive plan for balancing SS over the infinite horizon ("sustainable solvency"). Probably the only complete plan offered and evaluated by the SSA Actuaries that does not include privatization.

NCPSSM's only position on Social Security is to oppose privatization (according to it's own position statement). While not exactly mendacious, it does resort to some rather excessive "political hyperbole" in it's claims and advertisements.