In the Social Security debate, most Republicans are arguing that “carve-out” personal accounts are great and “add-on” personal accounts are terrible; Democrats are saying the reverse. I find it hard to see why the difference is worth fighting over, as I’ve written elsewhere. The latest shot in the carve-vs.-add war comes from conservative House members Mike Pence (R., Ind.) and John Shadegg (R., Ariz.), who have written a letter to the White House saying that they oppose “add-on accounts” and that most conservatives in the House are with them (which is undoubtedly true). (They’re reacting to a comment by Al Hubbard, head of the National Economic Council, suggesting openness to add-ons).

They argue that “add-on accounts do not solve the problems of solvency or

generational fairness facing Social Security,” which is a narrow way of looking at the issue. Letting people invest some of their payroll taxes–a “carve out”–doesn’t by itself solve the solvency problem, either, but it is possible to envision a package of reforms including that provision that does. So, too, it is possible to envision a reform package that includes add-ons that addresses the solvency and fairness issues. Or a package that includes some carving out and some adding on. And anyway, conservatives support all sorts of policies that don’t “solve the problems of solvency or generational fairness facing Social Security.” There are other worthy policy ends that add-ons could serve: enhancing retirement security, or giving people an ownership stake in the economy, for example. The letter strikes me as a mistake.