"So, boxers or briefs?"

Somewhat more seriously:

"Will you ever actually need a social security check? If not, why will you cash it?"

I'm not sure I would have any questions for him/her as all they do is project. What they project may influence policy but IMO, reguardless of projections, the system can be improved.

So I don't think I'd have any questions for them because what, how or when they project has nothing to do with changing the system merely fodder for those that would rather argue than improve.

~Matt

Just for clarification, the committee that makes these projections made no recommendations toward private accounts.

Would you have a question toward the private accounts direction?

---

_____________________________________
You're not stuck in traffic. You ARE traffic.

Maybe I'm confused as to the function and purpose of said "committee head".

If they are "Projecting" what are they projecting? And if they made no recomendations for PA's they must have had reason to make such a projection and "non recomendation and or had no reason to include PA's in first place.

I guess I'm confused as to what they are trying to accomplish.

Are they merely "projecting" benefits, tax rates to support benefits based on the current system? or are they trying to run models based on various parameters to try and actually find a more effecient system? In the former case PA's shoudl never have come up. In the later I woudl like to see what parameters were used to "project" that they concluded "not recommending them"

Certainly a crappy model that included PA's are worth no more than the current system and under certain parameters PA's are far worse.

I don't think anyone is calling PA's the "Elixor of life" merely a component of a better system to a better end result than the current system.

~Matt