I watched that interview. Bayh is interesting; he's going to have to plus up his charisma, though, if he wants to be the nominee in '08. I though this from Josh was funny:

How can you brand it with something that is already the established term for it? The term proponents of privatization themselves always chose? It's like branding me 'Josh'.

See also the new, more aqua Professor DeLong:

I think that the outlines of a potential deal on Social Security that would be good for the country are becoming clear: 1. Shift responsibility for maintaining actuarial balance off of the Congress and onto the Social Security Administration--have it gradually raise (and lower) the retirement age or the benefit-rule bend points in order to keep the system in projected balance. 2. Uncap FICA and apply it to all wage income in order to top-off private add-on accounts for the poor and boost benefits for widows. 3. Make enrollment in private accounts automatic (it's done automatically on your 1040) but voluntary (you can fill in an extra form to get the money the IRS earmarks for your account back as part of your refund). 4. Use the government's existing Thrift Savings Plan as a vehicle for managing private add-on accounts--and keep its choices restricted: churning and extra administrative costs caused by asset shuffling are not your friend. 5. Mandate that in fifteen years a commission consider and recommend whether or not two percentage points of FICA should be diverted and added to the add-on accounts as a forced savings program.

The problem is that the GOP leaders in Congress have shown time and again that they can't be trusted. I could see the Dems agreeing to some kind of responsible compromise and the GOP pulling a fast one in conference committee. Maybe SS is too big and scary of an issue for that to happen, but I would have thought the same thing about Medicare. There's plenty of arcana that can fly below the average Joe's radar screen.