The debate over whether there is a Social Security crisis is one I've been wary of. On the one hand it makes me nervous for Democrats to stake their ground with a Polyannaish sounding argument that the crisis is invented, when in fact we know that the government is gushing red ink, and long-term entitlements loom over the entire mess. But I know that privatizing a portion of the program is an absurd proposition which only further defunds Social Security, and further transfers wealth from the average worker to the big operators in the financial sector. In fact if one looks at the sequence of events from the creation of Social Security to the Reagan regressive tax change which "saved" it, to the current move toward privatization, can it not be pretty clearly shown that taken together this is the largest, most brazen case of stealing from the working class to enrich the wealthy class ever engineered by government?
Economics is not my strongest suit, but my blogging friends, Mike and Eric have both weighed in convincingly on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks Walker. I'm afraid I just blogged the latest outrage. Bush is forcing the Social Security Administration to pump out propaganda supporting the false claims behind the effort to eliminate Social Security.
This administration boldy leads a movement of misanthropic conservatism that looks back longingly and misty-eyed to the days of Dickensian England, Sandard Oil, and Robber Barons as the high point of socioeconomic development. These are the people who read Scrooge's "Are there no prisions... no Union workhouses!" rebuke with nodding approval and fraternal agreement.
What they are doing, however, is marketing this social regression with a happy face and the promise of untold riches for all, if only the thieving bureaucrates in the big, bad government would just get off their back. (And if the money changers fleece the citizenry, well that's just the blessings of [unregulated] free enterprise. It would be un-American to do otherwise.)
Mike, how could an article which appeared in the NYT on January 16, 2005 be the "latest outrage", and why is it outrageous for the Social Security Department to review all of the proposals from both sides.
Post a Comment