Reforming social security turns Americans into owners. They are not mere workers but capitalists as well. With the expansion of 401 K and other retirement programs, nearly one out of two Americans has ownership interest in corporate America. The Bush reform expands this even further. The workers become the bosses, thus turning Marx on its head.
As Voegeli notes, the left “doesn't ask if there's a point at which the welfare state might become too big, or where social solidarity might trigger claustrophobia.” The biggest debate that faces us today on domestic policies is to what extent should government power be limited. This is a philosophical debate as much as an economic debate. Today liberal is no longer a liberal but a socialist. A soft socialist but a socialist nevertheless. What has been missing from the Democratic Party is defining the line in the sand that government can’t cross economically
What is core to this debate is how much economic freedom will be allowed or tolerated. By reforming social security, George Bush is allowing the common man and woman the opportunity to build his or her wealth. It also gives that same individuals more freedom to prepare for their future. It treats social security, in part, as their money. The opposite vision is that our earnings are mere gifts to be distributed back to the people by a benevolent government.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Very astute to point out that the debate here isn't between liberal and conservative, but between Bush's liberal position and the democrats quasi-socialist position.
Good article.
Dave
2 - Brian
Yes, the idea of Social Security is to provide those with nothing, something to live on instead of having to go to churches, family, and begging in the community.
Think the problems with the "sign business" -- those people who say please give me money at the end of freeway ramps is big now? Expect tollbooths at the end of every one if Social Security goes away. We can expect armed confrontations and mass suicides. It is a slippery slope to give something to someone with nothing else available and then just take it away.
The scheme is of COURSE a Ponzi scheme, just as the whole banking industry and the concept of capitolism is a Ponzi scheme. The rich get richer buying somethning from the poor for nothing and selling it at the biggest profit possible to the slightly richer poor. The Fed gets richer by selling money to member banks. PACs help congressmen and senators and presidents get elected by donating money and getting legislation passed that help them keep more of their profits. So the top of the pyramid is the top 1% (The Bush family, the Bin Ladens, The Saudi Royal Family, Warren Buffet, etc). The 3 corporations in America that own everything are the real winners in the tax cuts and elimination of Social Security, medicaid and medicare The losers are everyone else.
All of the money will eventually percolate back up to the top 1% if it is not redistributed somehow (paying the poorest workers a living wage would be a start). So that is why SOC SEC was invented in the first place.
FDR was a rich man (in the top .01%) and knew the only way to get money back to the bottom was through redistribution of wealth.
If the Neocons want to kill people off who have no one and nothing, they should just say so instead of couching it in terms of "earning their way".
The poor do not CHOOSE to be poor. They have no choice -- you can't go to school if you can't pay the rent or feed the kids. You can't just find a better paying job (there aren't any!). Just don't fall off your lofty perches... There wont be a safety net if you decide to eliminate the Dept of Health and Human Services, social security or change them drastically. Don't get in a car accident or fall off a ladder (oh that's right, you have limo drivers and illegal immigrants to do that work for you -- lucky you!).
3 - Maurice
Geez Brian, you sure are negative. I am going to guess that you are young and have not traveled outside this country. There are so many opportunities in this country. If you grew up in England you would be subject to their caste system. Your only hope would be to do well on your A level and O level tests (age 14) that determine whether you go on in school or become a laborer. If you were like most people in England you would never own a car, house or TV. If you really are concerned with the working poor you should go to England.
Social Security (the real topic of this post!) needs to be fixed. It is only a matter of time. Better now than wait till it is even more costly to revamp. Great post, Tom.