THE CUSTODIANS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE.

Last week Tuesday, the ever-more agitated Chris Matthews and guest Ron Reagan agreed on what they perceived to be a compelling argument for "Social" "Security".

MATTHEWS: OK. 

Let me -- Ron, you have been through this, your family. We have all been through this debate at the dinner table. I have argued it as a kid saying, why do we have to have Social Security? My dad would say, you have to have it because people are irresponsible or poor and they don`t prepare for their futures. And somebody will end up having to pay for it with welfare anyway. So why don`t we make people provide for their futures basically through forced savings, Social Security?

That argument has always been able to sell with the majority.

REAGAN: Yes, and it will continue to be able to sell with the majority.

You know, a Ponzi scheme is a crime. Governor Perry is on record as calling Social Security a crime. And he can`t really run away from that effectively and I don`t think he did a good job of it last night. But the people who he`s appealing to, the Tea Party types he`s appealing to, they also think it`s a Ponzi scheme. They don`t care if it sounds a little stupid.

The Ponzi-ness of "Social" "Security" is up to the reader to determine.

The reality of local, state, and national governments using the assets in public pension funds to cover expenditures is another reason voters might want to have the option of putting their savings into investments that provide a genuine rate of return on new capital formation, something "Social" "Security" crowds out.

It doesn't do much good to suggest to voters that other voters -- or perhaps the voters themselves -- are irresponsible when the defenders of the public pensions have also been irresponsible.