< PREVIOUS ] [ 2005 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Like many Americans, I find myself confused by the proposed changes in Social Security, and I'm reaching an age where it's prudent to start paying attention. At first I thought of attending one of President George W. Bush's 60 road-trip presentations, but it soon became evident that I'm not the proper sort of citizen for those events, since I might ask a real question or otherwise disrupt the smooth flow of propaganda.
So I called my favorite inside source, Ananias Ziegler,
who handles media relations for the Committee That Really
Runs America. Before I could say much more than Good
morning,
he launched into an explanation about the
decay of the filibuster, or the threat thereof, in the U.S.
Senate. In 1968 it had been deployed for a noble purpose by
Republicans to thwart the nomination of Abe Fortas for
chief justice of the United States. But in these decadent
times, it was , being used by Democrats to delay action on
some judicial nominations.
Finally, I had a chance to interrupt him, and explained that I had called about Social Security reform.
What's so hard to understand?
he asked. We're
still working on the details, but basically, some of the
money you now pay into Social Security would instead go to
a personal account that you could pass on to your heirs. As
it is, if you died when you were 64, that money just
disappears as far as you or your family is
concerned.
That sounded like a better deal than the current system, I agreed, but I wondered how I should invest my personal fund.
You'll do fine in the private sector,
he said.
With the current system, you're at the mercy of Congress
and how it sets benefit levels. The private sector is more
trustworthy.
Like those Merrill Lynch agents who touted stocks that they knew were turkeys because Merrill Lynch did investment banking for those companies? How could the federal government be less trustworthy?
We're working on it,
Ziegler muttered before
realizing he'd said something he shouldn't.
Hmmm. Was the Committee trying to make Wall Street more honest? Or trying to make the government worse? I knew I wouldn't get an answer from him, so I moved on. What about all those retired people who thought they had solid pensions coming from United Airlines, and now the company is talking about eliminating all pensions? Just how is that more reliable than the federal government?
Ziegler put on some spin. As our President has
pointed out on many occasions, we all know that we can
spend our own money more intelligently than the government
can.
He was certainly right about that. I wouldn't spend a nickel, let alone borrow billions from my children and their descendants, to occupy Iraq.
That's not what I meant,
Ziegler said. And
let's get back to Social Security reform. A bleeding-heart
like you should be impressed with the president's latest
proposal, where future Social Security checks would
increase more quickly for the lowest-income retirees than
for everyone else.
That sounded compassionate, but then I thought about the politics of it. President Franklin D. Roosevelt set up Social Security to resemble insurance, so that it didn't just pay out to the poor. He figured that if the rich were involved too, then it would enjoy broad political support. Start adjusting the benefits so that it's perceived as a system primarily for the poor, and that broad support narrows, then vanishes. Look at how quickly America surrendered in the War on Poverty.
Ziegler chuckled. You catch on pretty fast, Quillen.
By sounding compassionate now, we're laying the political
groundwork for total elimination of the system a few years
down the road. It won't be easy, but we've got to convey an
important lesson.
And that is?
You can't trust the government, especially when we're
in charge.
With that, he excused himself, for he had to
take another call.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2005 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >