A tactic being used by liberal Democrats in the upcoming election cycle is scaring people by saying that conservative candidates want to “privatize” social security.
They make it sound so scary. When we examine the proposals, however, conservatives merely want to give people a choice about how their social security money is invested, giving them an opportunity to get a higher return.
I fear that wimpy Republicans will be scared into backing down on this issue. But if it is explained, it has the potential to be a slam-dunk issue for them. Here’s how I think it should be handled.
First of all, liberals are lying when they say conservatives want to privatize social security. Bush’s proposal and others I have heard all leave the Federal government in the administrative role in the program. And no one will be forced to convert their government account to a private account. It’s a scare tactic and a lie. What the proposals aim to do is to give people a choice. Use the word “personalize.” The proposals are to “personalize” social security.
And this is a great opportunity to drive the point home about the basic difference between liberals, or statists, and conservatives. We want to give people ownership of their own social security account, where statists want the account to be government owned. Turn the scare tactic right around on them.
Look, most younger people do not expect to be able to receive social security. So emphasize that conservatives want to grant them ownership of their social security account. With talk of unsustainability, of deep government debt, and stories of states and cities maybe going bankrupt, having ownership of your own social security account rather than letting the government own it would be tremendously comforting.
Stay on offense, conservatives! Don’t back down.
Visit the home page of our conservative politics website.
Click here to contribute your comments.
This has got to to be the most stupid, most misinformed, most dangerous article I have yet to read regarding Social Security and the scum who want to abolish it.
Let me fill you in on some reality, my dear lunatic:
• Pays its own way, does not and cannot add to the deficit and produces surpluses already totaling $2.77 trillion and projected to exceed $4 trillion;
• Pays benefits only to those “entitled” by satisfying prescribed eligibility requirements — extensive periods of work and contribution;
• Insures family members — starting at birth — against income loss due to an earner’s death, disability or retirement;
• Reduces poverty program more effectively than any other program, especially for older women;
• Generates billions of dollars in beneficiary purchasing power that fuel hundreds of billions in sales and millions of jobs; and
• Has non-benefit costs below one percent of benefits paid.
The only reason why young people think that Social Security won’t be around is because fearmingers like you keep spoonfeeding them that Big Lie. The only way there won’t be a Social Security in their future is if they continue to fall for your lies.
Response by David Hall:
Dear MiHi,
Boy, I really struck a nerve with you with this posting! I think I’d find it very interesting to delve into your psyche to find out why you find it so threatening to allow people control or ownership of their own Social Security account.
As far as the financial solvency of the program, the Obama administration’s Social Security trustees issued a report on August 5 of this year. You can read the Trustee’s Report yourself if you wish. Here is a quote: “Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983.” It goes on to predict a smaller deficit for 2011 and small surpluses in 2012 to 2014, which it says is based on their assumptions of an improving economy. Only diehard liberals, however, believe that the economy will be improving in 2011 to 2014. (The trustees report doesn’t mention that. Officially, we are in a recovery. But only 17% of the people believe that, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released yesterday.) And then, even with rosy economic projections there are dire predictions for what follows. I quote again: “After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers.”
In 1940, five years after the creation of Social Security, there were 42 workers for every retiree receiving benefits. Ten years later, in 1950, that ratio was 16 to 1. In 2010, the ratio is 3.3 to 1. By 2050, according to current population projections, every retiree will be supported by only two workers. (Source: Report on Understanding Social Security by Prudential.) It doesn’t take a college calculus course to figure out that this won’t work.
MiHi, your utopian view that the government can support the people, I’m sure it feels good to you. The problem is that it can’t work, not over the long haul. I believe that’s the source of the fears people have over the long-term sustainability of this program.
There’s no need for the GOP to reinvent the wheel here. If they really are looking out for keeping social security, they need to bring jobs back to the U.S. But we all know the reason for this Conservative push, don’t we? More profit and control for the top 1% elite.
Privatization is a BAD IDEA.
I wonder how much time and money Rupert Murdoch and his Republican ilk have already invested in this idea?
Response by David Hall:
I guess I’ve really touched a nerve. You Statists are making no sense in arguing against allowing people to control their own retirement funds. Republicans, take note. They have no way, absolutely no way to argue against this. All they can think of to do is to try to stretch this into some kind of class warfare thing.
Jim, it seems a little weird for a statist like yourself who wants more government control to be talking about elites who want to control us. But this is the mantra. Hate the rich. Corporations have too much power. And you use that to argue for a bigger and bigger government with absolute power over everything.
Guess what. As much money as Rupert Murdoch has, he has no power to put me in jail, to tell me what to do, to take away anything I own by force, to control my health care and my life expectancy, to tell me what kind of a car I can drive or what kind of light bulbs I can use, or to shut me up when I want to speak out. Wake up, and see where the real power is getting concentrated here.