Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (94413)	1/9/2005 2:21:11 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793838

An Evil, Hidden Agenda Patrick Ruffino blog Disregard the fact that the attribution of the leaked Social Security "memo" marked "not for attribution" likely amounts to a severe breach of the sacred compact between any journalist and any source. Ignore the fact that an off-the-record exchange can now be considered on-the-record and suitable for the front page should a journalist whisper it in another journalist's ear. Let's focus on something that folks in Washington's media-industrial complex rarely like to discuss: the substance of the debate. In the last few weeks, the Democratic strategy to distort the truth about personal accounts has congealed. Here's what they're going to do. They're going to claim that Social Security's solvency crisis is no more than a "myth", a ruse for the Republicans "hidden agenda" to "dismantle" the program. They're going to ignore the mathematical certainty that a relatively static number of workers cannot indefinetely support a mushrooming number of retirees. And as the White House official (on blogs, we attribute correctly) adeptly points out, this certainty is compounded by the wage indexation of benefits -- meaning that no matter how quickly tax revenues grow, benefits will grow just as fast, making it impossible for traditional Social Security to ever close this funding gap. But let's leave aside the question of solvency. The bottom line of this whole debate remains that modernizing Social Security with personal accounts is the right thing to do. Even if Social Security were perfectly solvent, it would still be the right thing to do. You accuse us of having a "hidden agenda." Let's spell out in clear terms of what that "hidden agenda" actually is. The status quo that Democrats are so desperately defending is this: an average benefit of that's a paltry $926 a month, $11,112 a year. Seventy years of New Deal largesse, and this is the best you can do for seniors with no other retirement savings? The opportunity to make life dramatically better through significantly higher Social Security benefits lies before us, and your "solution" is simply to postpone doom? Fiscal realities aside, that's a choice that's morally indefensible. The advocates of reform would be well advised to get out front in this debate. Charts should be produced showing today's Social Security benefit, versus what they would be under the most conservative of personal accounts. The difference between the two is the benefit that Democrats are fighting to deny you. That gap is your Social Security money that the Democrats are trying to destroy. When Democrats carp about a "hidden agenda" always bring the debate back to this cornerstone. Responsibility vs. doing the thing that's failed over and over again. Modernization vs. a stuck-in-'35 mindset. Growth vs. stagnation. More vs. less. These are the terms upon which the future of Social Security must be debated, liberal red herrings aside. Because Republicans do have an evil "hidden agenda." To make you rich.