Social Security Reform Going To Move Slowly
As President Bush is out on the trail talking about social security reform, some leaders seem to think the issue may take some time to resolve. That's a shame for the working folks, especially the young and the working poor. Those are the ones who will be the big beneficiaries of some form of private accounts. This article points out that the system's problems are being brought to light, but that there will politics played to the nth degree in Washington on this. Much is going to be debated in coming months on this issue and potential solutions.
My guess is that the Republicans are going to call for private accounts, which will help the poorer folks over time. This tends to contradict long held ideas that Republicans are the party for the rich. The Democrats more than likely will oppose any effort in this regard (and possibly anything Bush proposes) which also contradicts commonly held opinions that they are the party for the working people.
I don't understand why a party supposedly for the working people would oppose such a proposal which would allow anyone willing to work the opportunity to acquire wealth, UNLESS it's to keep the poor poor and dependent on a government stipend. By doing this they can continue to try to impress upon those people all that the government is doing for them. In reality, people need to understand what the government is doing to them.
Just a thought.
posted by Ol' BC @ 10:52 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Imagine a poor chap making 15K his whole life in a deli. When he dies, his kids get squat right now - well, except for a $250 Social Security check to help with burial (which doesn't quite cover the costs).
Now, imagine what the chap would be able to leave to his kids if he were able to establish Bush's private accounts! That poor chap might be able to leave his kids $10,000 or $20,000 or more depending on how much he made in his lifetime.
Why, that's enough for a car, a down payment on a house, or a couple of years tuition at a community college.
Is there any reason the Democrats oppose this? Of course!
They don't want these people realizing they don't need Uncle Democrats help to get out of the poorhouse...
"We" are not doing it to ourselves. The original mandate of government was protection of property from criminals and outsiders - not roads, not Social Security, not Medicare.
If you track the overreaching of government throughout American history, you will see it correlates well with the expansion of voting rights. In essence, the more voters, the more government.
The problem is that the majority of people are not qualified to choose their representatives. Voting is not a civic duty; informed voting might be, but certainly not voting in general.
As more and more uninformed (or stupid, ignorant, mentally disabled, uncaring, apathetic, etc.) people began to go to the polls, the value of their judgment was reflected in their choices.
Consistent with this thesis, a good percentage of voters no longer choose a candidate based on a platform, but hair color, skin tone, and "sex appeal" instead. Do you think Abe Lincoln would ever get elected today? Not with that chin!
Therefore, government is antagonistic. It is antagonistic to informed voters, since their voices are continually drowned out by the mass of stupid people. Throughout history, government has always been a "necessary evil," now it is a "necessary and ignorantly chosen evil."
Post a Comment
<< Home