When the debate over Social Security reform began, advocates of privatization offered three main arguments in favor of their position.

The first was the virtues of choice. Let people control their own money, and they will invest it more wisely than the government. But, as I warned on this program two months ago, more choice implies higher cost. And sure enough, as the administration reveals the details of its plan, it turns out that choice will be quite limited.

The second argument was the need to boost national saving, which can indeed be accomplished by pre-funding Social Security. But the President’s proposal is not for pre-funding. It’s for borrowing trillions of dollars to finance the so-called transition costs. By the administration’s own admission, the plan will not raise national saving at all.

The third argument was that privatization will improve Social Security’s finances. The President keeps repeating this claim in public. But a widely-reported White House memo admits that privatization per se will do nothing of the kind.

Thus, in its rare moments of candor, the administration has admitted that its plan will not offer much choice, will not raise national saving, and will not improve Social Security’s solvency. So why, you might ask, are they pushing for privatization?

The answer has been clear since Barry Goldwater advocated it in the 1960s. Privatization would undermine both the political and economic foundations of America’s most successful social program. If you’re far enough to the right, that’s just what you want.

I’m Alan Blinder.