Irving, you complete and utter shmuck. Do you actually read the tripe you link to? I just happened to be cruising back and saw this. Linked a 1980's TX alternative to ss based on (actual text):

"Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a “banking model” rather than an “investment model.” To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers’ contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We’ve averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we’ve provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability."

Annuities. NOT stocks. Annuities. You disingenuous so-and-so. You'd like us to invest in annuities? And note the fact that it's still centrally run. No hint of individual management of retirement accounts. Just the good folks of the state government in TX managing the whole thing. Not a triumphant elimination of retirement obligations. Just a different way to centrally run them. Oh, and finally, do a little research on the actual pay-outs and mix. The picture is a lot less rosy than this author would like to paint. Why would that be? Oh, yeah, the author CAME UP with the scheme.

So what the hell is your point? Are all your links so goofy?