"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." Above is courtesy of the Rude Pundit. The social security "fix" will work well for middle to high income wage earners, but for low income workers this will be the path to dept and homelessness. Let’s hope that Rep Musgrave spends as much time researching the facts about this proposal as she spends on her divisive hate filled “marriage” amendment.

And, for the record, when has 5280 ever claimed to be "objective?" We're a magazine, not a newspaper or newsweekly. Magazines have a point of view, whether you're talking about the National Review, Vanity Fair, or Oprah.

James, honestly, I've watched you post these patronizing comments on this site day after day. At one point (I understand it's possible I read it somewhere else), you mentioned that media can never be truly objective, as human beings are biased in nature, blah blah blah. It's clear that you're well-read, opinionated, well-spoken, and have a very mature vocabulary, for which I'd like to personally congratulate you. However, James, truth be told, I'm getting a little tired of your rabble rousing. The fact is is that there is a type of medium fit for everyone, and this, clearly, is not yours. I would not at all have been prompted to mention my contempt for your feedback (dialogue is healthy, necessary, and justifies the need for media in the first place) if you hadn't added that blind, accusational, negatively connotative comment at the end of your defense of the personalization of social security. Sir, say what you will about someone's dissenting opinion, but I find your personal attacks disgusting. Even though every single obnoxious comment you left here has left a bitter, conservative taste in my mouth, I'd never once thought low of your personal character. Please, James, go hump yourself elsewhere.

If you are going to present yourselves as an objective publication it would be more than appropriate for you to present relevant facts: 1) The proposal to 'ruin' Social Security would allow a given individual to set aside up to a MAXIMUM of $1,000 dollars per year from their Social Security payroll taxes into an account for themselves. 2) These monies would be invested into limited situations with low to medium financial risks, such as mutual funds. Which means you could not invest in Bill Clinton's chocolate-covered pickle on a stick plan. 3) The proposal would be strictly voluntary. 4) Two counties in Colorado already allow government employees a program such as this. They have been doing it since the late 1970s. Maybe YOU should do your homework instead of trolling bars in downtown Denver.