Con to the question "Should Social Security Be Privatized?"
"I have been adamant in saying that Social Security should not be privatized and it will not be privatized as long as I'm President. And here’s the reason. I was opposed to it before the financial crisis. And what I said was the purpose of Social Security is to have that floor, that solid -- rock-solid security, so that no matter what else happens you’ve always got some income to support you in your retirement. And I've got no problem with people investing in their 401(k)s, and we want to encourage people to invest in private savings accounts. But Social Security has to be separate from that...
So here’s the thing. Social Security is not in crisis. What is happening is, is that the population is getting older, which means we've got more retirees per worker than we used to. We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it. There are some fairly modest changes that could be made without resorting to any newfangled schemes that would continue Social Security for another 75 years, where everybody would get the benefits that they deserve."
"Remarks by the President at a Discussion with Ohio Families on the Economy," www.whitehouse.gov, Aug. 18, 2010
Experts Individuals with PhDs, JDs, or equivalent advanced degrees in fields relevant to the privatization of Social Security; and top-level federal government officials significantly involved in Social Security and related issues. [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:
44th President of the United States, Jan. 20, 2009 - present
Member, US Senate (D-IL), 2005-2008
Member, US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 2005-2006
Member, Illinois State Senate, 1997-2004
Attorney, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, 1993-2004
Former Teacher, Constitutional Law, University of Chicago