There is this thing called "Loss Aversion" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion)
that makes people more wary of losses than they are hungry for gains. So, basically, offering someone the choice of losing the sure thing of current benefits v the risk involved in privitizing SS is a guarenteed non starter.
I know that and Im an idiot. It is hard to believe that there isn't a single economist working in the White House.
Well, it isn't actually very hard to believe, I was just being coy.
'''To illustrate, consider Kahneman & Tversky's 1984 study where they asked a representative sample of physicians the following question. Read and answer it before you continue.
Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs would you favor?
http://www.workingpsychology.com/lossaver.html'''