Thursday,
March 10 2005
MR. REICH'S DEPENDENCY: Two very revealing bits from
Robert
Reich's argument this morning against reforming Social Security.
Here's the first:
Under
the Bush plan, future Social Security payments for our two boys
— now ages 20 and 23 — would be cut by whatever
amount they divert from their payroll taxes into private accounts.
(Actually, it would be an even bigger amount — that amount
adjusted upward for inflation plus 3% interest a year, just
as though the government has lent them the money and demands
repayment when it comes time for them to retire.)
That
means that if the boys have bad luck in the stock market, they
might be out of luck, period. Social Security won't be there
to cushion them against poverty in old age.
The vital
omission here - one which Democrats have been making since the
Social Security debate began - is that no one is obligated to
do anything under Bush's plan. Those who have anxiety over the
idea of a personal account or worry they may end up worse off
down the road (however unlikely that might be) can simply stick
with the current system.
Here is reveal
number two:
There
should be no generational divide on Social Security. It's a
good deal for everyone. I want our boys to be able to depend
on Social Security when they retire, just as their grandparents
and great-grandparents relied on it — and just
as I'll depend on it in a few years.(emphasis added)
I don't believe
Robert Reich is a tremendously wealthy man, but he's certainly
not a poor one either. To claim that he will be "depending"
on checks from Social Security to help sustain his retirement
probably falls somewhere between a good-sized embellishment and
a flat-out lie.
So why does
Reich portray himself as someone who will be in need of Social
Security even though he could probably get along just fine without
it? One reason is to establish a sense of solidarity with readers
("we're all in this together") and another is to convince
readers that dependence on Social Security is desirable ("it's
a good deal for everyone").
Remember,
in the lexicon of the left "dependent" and "reliant"
aren't dirty words - unless they're attached to the prefix "self."
Instead, dependence on government is something the left tries
to cultivate because government is the tool by which liberals
can mete out programs designed to achieve "social justice."
Social Security represents one of the largest and most long standing
tethers of dependency Americans have to the federal government.
Obviously,
the details of how Social Security reform is structured are important.
But if you throw out all the noise, the ever-changing numbers
and the manipulated projections, the Social Security debate boils
down to one that is fundamentally about government dependency
versus individual freedom. Should people have the right (feel
free to substitute the word "option" or "freedom")
to have more control over and make decisions about how a small
portion of the tax they pay is invested for their future retirement?
The only reason the average American worker would answer "no"
to this question is if they've been sufficiently frightened into
believing that the government can make better decisions for them
than they can make for themselves. - T. Bevan 11:32 am
Link | Email
| Send
to a Friend
