Socially Incorrect
Sometime in the last four years
people began to put the words ‘Social Security’ quite nearby
the word ‘bankrupt’. And, more recently, young people began
to simply assume that they were not going to receive Social Security when
they reached the allotted age. That load of crap was present in the back
of my mind a whole year before Bush started talking about reform.
I recently heard more truthful figures on NPR: The Social Security trust
fund is doing just fine. It will go bankrupt only if the Federal Treasury
defaults on its loans, in which case Social Security will be the least
of our worries (anarchy being the foremost). Social Security will pay
one hundred percent of benefits until 2042 (not much help to me) but after
2042 it will continue to pay seventy to eighty percent of benefits indefinitely.
Simple reforms, such as raising the salary cap, could eliminate this shortfall.
We have very little to worry about. Why such a huge change then? How come
Alan Greenspan supports these reforms?
To my ear, the real reason – beyond pleasing the private sector,
beyond taking pressure off the Treasury, beyond empowering individuals
– is that Republicans dislike social programs. The Neoconservative
ideal, as conspiratorial as it sounds, seems to be to divert all funding
from social programs to ‘defense’. These people commonly believe
that Social Security does something that Americans should be able to do
for themselves. Why should the government force Americans to save their
money. The people of this country should save on their own, and if they
don’t, that’s their stupid mistake.
In a 1983 interview with the New York Times, Alan Greenspan said “Do
I like the present Social Security system? No. If you asked me whether
it would be necessary in the ideal society, I'd say no. Our type of economy
is far removed from where I would like to see it, but you have to be careful
about moving from one type of society to another.”
They’re carefully moving to another type of society.
In their society, people decide individually how to spend money domestically.
Give Americans back their taxes and they’ll save money for retirement
on their own time. Take only what we need for wars and Americans will
build their own private schools of varying quality where children learn
whatever their parents want them to learn, and the free market determines
whether they stay open. Build up a debt so massive that it almost seems
logical to cut funding for environmental protection, welfare, education,
veterans benefits, and health care.
I apologize if I sound like a lunatic. I try very hard to avoid making
broad statements about other people’s intents, but the possibilities
frighten me. The Bush administration just proposed its budget, and it
cuts all of the above programs, but still forecasts a $427 billion deficit
due entirely to increases in defense budgets and decreases in taxes.
Of course, there is one other reason for Bush to introduce such debatable
and disputed legislation: I am not writing about the War in Iraq. Newspapers
aren’t writing news about it, radio commentators aren’t commenting
on it, television anchors aren’t talking about it. But people are
still dying. Every day, more ‘insurgencies’ more ‘peace
keeping’ more ‘stabilization’ and more ‘acts of
terror’. Americans are dying, civilians are dying, it is as messy
as it was months ago when it held the top spot of every newspaper in the
country. But Social Security is now the cause that divides the nation.
If it doesn’t pan out for the Bush Administration, it has still
provided this service. In that respect their campaign for Social Security
reform is already a success.
For a full year I wrote a weekly column for a daily paper in Boulder CO. I wrote about being young, poor and green, and the column was widely loved throughout the city. It remains one of the most rewarding things I've ever done.
If you've got some time on your hands...check 'em out.
Colder than the Hinges of Hell
Four More Ounces of Responsibility