February 23, 2005
The Social Security Debate
Senator Santorum was in Philadelphia today talking about Social Security at my alma-mater(*).
YoungPhillyPolitics has a local liberal reaction.
- The Social Security battle has never been about "fixing it," always about starting a process to kill it. And, it looks like Drexel Republicans have come right out and said it.
From Daily Kos:
- In a surprising display of candor, Drexel College Republicans admitted to knowing the real plan for Bush's Social Security : ending it.
Today, I picketed at one of Rick Santorum's Privatization town hall meetings at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Anti-privatization forces and Drexel Dems out-numbered Pro-privatization forces and College Repubs. 6 to 1. There were about 40 of us total -- but CNN, the Washington Post, ABC were all covering our anti-privatization protest.
CNN started filming, so we started to chant "Hey-Hey Ho-Ho, Rick Santorum has got to go!" In response, the Drexel Republicans retorted with their own chant: "Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Social Security has got to go!" Our jaws just about jawed as CNN continued to film. We stopped our chant, and let the Repubs take over -- they were doing our job for us!
Who has been feeding Drexel Repubs the lead paint???
Well, at least they are honest. Ha.
Of course it's about ending Social Security. As we know it. You really can't chant that, I suppose.
Ulitimately, it's quite simple. With George Bush's ownership society idea, we'll start putting more of our own money into more of our accounts. Sure, now it's 1/3 (or 2/3 depending on your point of view), but sooner or later as the personalization catches on, it'll ratchet up to 4/5, 9/10s, maybe even 100%. At that point, Social Security would become a government mandated personal retirement account.
Despite my conservative neoliberalism (government is not always the best answer), it has to be government mandated because there's always going to be a knucklehead NOT saving for the future and we'll end up footing his bill anyway. Tragedy of the Commons in a way.
I'm a bit of a pessimist, so we should really account for future governments screwing it up, but that's the direction we're heading in right now; and it's a good thing.
Now, if your view of Social Security is a massive government run safety net for all individuals to contribute, and only some to collect from, then yes, Social Security is going to end. But fear not, fellow compassionate American, we're always going to support the handicapped or the infirm, or the tragically wronged with government funds. That's not going away. The ponzi scheme called Social Security is.
One question I'm left with is more of a meta-question.
When did the Democrats become the "let's do the opposite of what George Bush does" party? There was a Social Security crisis in the last decade, the President recognized it then. Did it miraculously fix itself? Was he lying then?
Thank you, yes I do believe that is the plan for SS and I am for the ending of SS as we know it. My trouble is and always will be how we manage the changeover. Kudos to Pres. Bush for having the guts to put forth a plan, but I can't stand up and cheer until he has the guts to really define the plan. I am a bit of a pessimist too and my rule of thumb is that when a politician describes a new plan and only talks about the good part (that wonderful ownership of compounding interest) you better grab your wallet. Someone needs to define for me how we phase the current SS out. I am almost halfway through my working years, but hey, I can look up past performance of one of the proposed funds and calculate my investment plus interest, and if the Treasury Dept. deposits those funds in my account I am good to go. But since that ain't gonna happen I want to know what kind of credit I am going to get for what I have already paid into SS. That's the not so simple part. There is a big 'ol devil in them thar details. I keep harping on this because there is a law of unintended consequences, like that pointed out about wage restrictions during WWII and the birth of employer paid health benefits. Some of these consequences cannot be foreseen, but some can - campaign finance reform anyone? There needs to be some due diligence here which means talking about how we really transition from our current SS to the new government mandated personal retirement accounts. President Bush makes it sound like he is a gutsy get it done leader, but peek behind the curtain a little and you see a traditional politician promising you a free lunch.
This is where my Dems ought to be. Sadly Alex C. is right, they have become the "against" party.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 23, 2005 10:13 AM | What do you think? [1]