What strikes me as really odd, though, are that they admit this won't solve the fiscal problem that they claim exists. Thus, the real reason for getting rid of Social Security must lie elsewhere. I believe -- and a few quotes have leaked out here and there to this effect -- that this is part of a long-term stategy to destroy the program BECUASE it works. The battle is ideological: a federal program that works to help out all Americans, a program that is social and provides security, contradicts that conservative philosophy of government.
Even odder yet are these words from the State of the Union:
The goal here is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We will make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We will make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. We will make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement. We will make sure a personal account can't be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits. And we will make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal retirement accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.How is this conservative? "We will make sure ... we will make sure ... we will make sure...." Doesn't that sound like the ultimate in goverment paternalism? Bush keeps telling people in his tour around the country that they will not be able to use their retirement money in dice games. Well, why not? I thought this was supposed to be my money?
Oh, by the way, no one dared take the quiz I posted a few days ago: True or False: "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt." The answer, of course, is: FALSE. Entirely false. A bald-faced lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment