I would consider holding part of that money back resonable if there was some fixed mininum that you couldn't go below no matter how badly you invested. But so far I havn't seen that there is any saftey net for people that choose to take their money out.

As far as I can see, the only reason to get involved in this investment plan is if there is a significant penalty for not doing it. Which is where I expect the cut in benefits for people that don't invest comes in.

Another thing that worries me is how the government will decide what you can invest in and what you can't. There are several different ways I can see that being abused, from the blatent kick backs to get on the investment list to the subtle influencing of the economy based on how you are allowed to invest the money.

Bush also threw a straight up wopper in his speech last night. He said that the money you invest is yours and can be inherited by your family. But the plan being put forth so far doesn't allow that, instead that money is absorbed back into the general fund.

Of course, the offical proposal has not really been put forth, so it's hard to really complain about the details. This seems to be a consistant Bush strategy, hold back the actual details until a majority has been convinced that something must be done and that the general idea is OK. Thus, by the time they make the plan available, people are arguing over the details not the question of the whole plan being a good idea or not.

Jay