Cybrpnk's Rantings

I have been trying for weeks to make sense out of what our so-called president is proposing to do with Social Security. No luck so far, unless I look at it as a ploy to completely destroy the notion of liberalism in America. First off, we have this line about social security being in crisis, and there being a pressing need to do something about it now. In addition to the eerie similarity to the warnings of Saddam and mushroom clouds, there is a complete disregard for other crises which seem to be larger in magnitude and/or of greater urgency. Then there is the incomprehensible fact that the only concrete suggestion that Bush has made, his private accounts, do nothing for the fiscal state of the program, yet blow a massive hole in the federal budget. Finally, all of the proposals, hints, statements, etc. coming out of the White House and conservative Republicans seem to be pushing for changing Social Security, yet sticking with the paradigm of government compelling people to save and invest, and even telling people how to invest. This monumental piece of hypocrisy coming from people who think that government telling you to buckle up your seatbelt is unacceptable meddling in your personal life should be ringing alarm bells across this country.

The conservatives hate Social Security. They've wanted to do it in since before it's inception. The idea of government raising money to fund an anti-poverty program makes them crazy. Unless, of course, that anti-poverty program involves funneling the money directly to big business. Despite this, they speak of the necessity of raising the private savings rate in this country, and claim to accept the premise that it's okay to compel people to save. W was discussing yesterday how he is even okay with limiting available investment choices people to ensure conservative investing decisions. In short, they are proposing a program that is more restrictive than either IRAs or 401ks, but is mandatory. I smell a rat. Here's what I think they are really up to: they want everyone in the country to have some miniscule amount of money tied up in big American businesses. They want people to believe that the quality of their retirement is contingent on the well-being of multinational corporations. They want to be able to portray every progressive initiative as not just anti-business, but destructive of the retirement benefits of millions of hard-working Americans. When they speak of 'ownership society' they really mean 'propaganda effort to convince everyone that their interests and the interests of big corporations are closely aligned.'

The Democratic response to the president's fecklessness has been decent so far, but I would like to see some people mounting an assault on the right flank of the Republicans on this one as well. Start asking the conservatives you know how the idea of compelling people to save and invest is okay with them. Ask them why the government should be allowed to limit people's investment choices. Then point out to them that they are selling out their personal beliefs to back Bush. Unless, of course, they start spouting about the necessity of ensuring the safety of people's retirement money. Then you can push on to ask them why the government should be involved in that. They've laid this trap for themselves: they are making all of these public statements implicitly accepting that government has a compelling interest in forcing people to save. They are even saying that it is okay for government to tell you how to invest. Personal choice? Not really. A strictly constrained illusion of personal choice is more like it. The truth is, they don't trust the average person to make the right choice at all. They never have. And, heck, if we can't trust people to make the right investment choices, why not just leave the core of the program just the way it is? After all, if we leave benefits unchanged, yet raise the contribution level to cover the first $200,000 of income, that probably solves the whole 'crisis.'