Just in time to answer my questions about what's really going on with Social Security reform, the Washington Post has a series of articles about it today
( Read more... )
3) The Republicans' main interest is in social engineering, not fiscal responsibility. The thinking behind private accounts has more to do with Bush's "ownership society" than it does with "saving social security". The idea is to make everyone a shareholder, giving them both a greater sense of responsibility for their own future, and a greater sense of participation in the economy. (Thanks, cos) The cynic in me can't resist pointing out that shareholders are more likely to vote Republican, and that increasing investment by U.S. workers will increase capitalization of U.S. firms, indirectly increasing donations to the Republican party. However, I'm actually willing to accept that the Republicans may well be advocating this change in the system out of a genuine sense of idealism.
But where does this leave the "widows, orphans, disabled, and surviving spouses"? That is, people who may never have "paid into" the system?
If the system gets privatized as a retirement fund, the "charity aspects" go away.
But where does this leave the "widows, orphans, disabled, and surviving spouses"? That is, people who may never have "paid into" the system?
If the system gets privatized as a retirement fund, the "charity aspects" go away.
And I'm really, really not comfortable with that.
CU
Reply
Leave a comment