Am I a conservative?
I just about drove off the road while listening to Dubbya's latest Social Security "bail out" plan. I can't tell anymore whether he's leaning port or starboard. Let me explain.
His first attempt was to privatize a part of social security. While I didn't, and still don't agree with this after losing half of my net worth in the market, I could at least understand why a conservative would invent such an approach. Afterall, what would be more consistent than to dump a huge amount of tax collected cash into the hands of large conservative busnessmen? The Bushie's last idea is so diametrically opposed with this original view that it makes you wonder. Let me explain.
The current proposal would implement a graduated benefit based on some income test that would result in low income folks (less than $35K) getting more money and people who make more than 90K losing 50% of their benefits. If you're between these two figures, in other words, you are in the middle class, you get to lose aroung 35% of whatever benefits you were expecting. Doesn't this look like a liberal welfare program? Well, it does to me. I'm not totally opposed to the concept here but I'm surprised the Republican's aren't.
It seems to me that the problem with Social Security is that we have a baby boomer generation about ready to retire (if they can) and the current base won't be able to support them. Now, the current administration predicts the system will have to reduce benefits by 2040. That's 35 years from now. Without doing any real analysis, wouldn't you think that by 2040, many of these boomers will start to die off- effectively reducing the total number of folks supported by social security? This should normalize the system or even improve it. Remember that you can't collect social security without severe penalites until your 65 or so. Anyway, much of what's being said doesn't seem to add up. All I know is that the current administration has a serious case of schyzophrenia.
His first attempt was to privatize a part of social security. While I didn't, and still don't agree with this after losing half of my net worth in the market, I could at least understand why a conservative would invent such an approach. Afterall, what would be more consistent than to dump a huge amount of tax collected cash into the hands of large conservative busnessmen? The Bushie's last idea is so diametrically opposed with this original view that it makes you wonder. Let me explain.
The current proposal would implement a graduated benefit based on some income test that would result in low income folks (less than $35K) getting more money and people who make more than 90K losing 50% of their benefits. If you're between these two figures, in other words, you are in the middle class, you get to lose aroung 35% of whatever benefits you were expecting. Doesn't this look like a liberal welfare program? Well, it does to me. I'm not totally opposed to the concept here but I'm surprised the Republican's aren't.
It seems to me that the problem with Social Security is that we have a baby boomer generation about ready to retire (if they can) and the current base won't be able to support them. Now, the current administration predicts the system will have to reduce benefits by 2040. That's 35 years from now. Without doing any real analysis, wouldn't you think that by 2040, many of these boomers will start to die off- effectively reducing the total number of folks supported by social security? This should normalize the system or even improve it. Remember that you can't collect social security without severe penalites until your 65 or so. Anyway, much of what's being said doesn't seem to add up. All I know is that the current administration has a serious case of schyzophrenia.
posted by Politico at 9:15 AM
2 Comments:
I have a couple of tests on my blog to answer your question. Try 'em out - my students really like them
While it's tempting to lump Dubya into the "conservative" category (based on the impression that the GOP represents "real" conservatism), he is in fact nothing more than a statist socialist. A genuine conservative (regardless of whether or not you agree with their ideology) would never advocate "reforming" social security; rather, they would call for its immediate abolition and for the right of individual workers to invest their retirement savings in whatever system they want, or to not invest at all. Dubya's plan, on the other hand, merely coerces the working and their employer into funneling a miniscule portion of existing social security contributions into the coffers of politically-sanctioned investment firms. Not a "conservative" solution in the traditional sense of the word by any means.
Post a Comment
<< Home