Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Social Security phase-out

I couldn't have said it better than Josh:

If you doubt that the plan is to get rid of Social Security entirely you are simply naive. Look at the structure of all the phase-out proposals. They don't really envision a hybrid system for the longterm. They are all designed to siphon money out of the system, weaken it, trigger the crisis President Bush now falsely claims exists and create an accelerating pressure to complete the process of phase-out.

If you think about it, nothing else would really make sense. If partial phase-out is a good thing, why isn't total phase-out even better? This isn't about solvency; it's about the ideology of people who don't believe in or approve of the near-universal, defined-benefit program America has had for seven decades.

That's the plan and that's what's at stake.

Yep. The real question is, what's your attitude toward risk? Do you think it should be shared socially, or do you basically think "fuck everyone else; I'll take care of myself."

Actually, let's be fair. Many of the advocates of this program think to themselves, "I'll take care of myself; those who can't, should turn to the church. And if they won't turn the church, then f...."


rmockler said...

This highlights a recurring problem for the left. Josh and others have done a great job of identifying the real goal of the administration and of beginning to set up a good defense. But that's only half the battle. The left also has to fight back or the only possible outcome is a compromise, which will necessarily be at least a partial victory for the right. The correct response is to defend Social Security and also to attack. If the GOP wants to get rid of a sacred institution like Social Security, the left has to attack an even more sacred Republican institution. I don't have any ideas for what that might be, but it would help to have some other chips on the table.

Anonymous said...

How about a constitutional amendment mandating the teaching of evolution?