The Big Push Begins

Many people today pointing out that the Social Security privatization train is looking to jump the tracks now that a few details, pre-sausage phase, are out. Not that this is the least bit shocking, given the elements we're dealing with here.

I never felt at all comfortable with George Bush being "the guy" on this one, for all the obvious reasons, but for another reason a little less obvious that just struck me today. When this stuff (of all flavors) is debated on the news, the formula is: present the case as politician X is making it, often juxtaposed against the opposite view voiced by a think tanker or academic. Now, no matter where you stand on no matter what issue, all things being equal you would much rather have your opinion represented by an educated person than some numb-nuts politician. When, during the course of some three-minute segment, Bush's privatization plan is rebutted by the best the Brooking Institution has the offer, I figure my side is losing the debate eventually. I can say this for sure - when this half-baked socialist "privatization" goes through, and the next Democratic president (if there is one) tries to re-implement SS, I'll enjoy the debate much more seeing Michael Tanner and Don Boudreaux on Headline News and telling my side.

Share this

So, given that you'll never

So, given that you'll never get something passed that just gets rid of SS entirely, what's the politically acceptable alternative to what's being proposed?

I have to say that the

I have to say that the currently circulating description of the Bush plan clears up a lot of questions for me. "Why on earth," I have been wondering, "would Mr. Bush embark on a plan to reduce the scope of government? He is a politician, after all." But under this new scheme, it looks as though federal and state government between them would end up voting a majority share of the stock of most large companies.

The Democrats will love this if it ever gets enacted. They'll restore the defined-benefit part of the plan the moment that they get control back, but they'll keep around the "private" accounts as well. Government control of the economy by means of "private" accounts and "free market" mechanisms is a holy grail, politically.

Michael, I speak only for

Michael,

I speak only for myself, but this is my plan.

Again I ask, what's your

Again I ask, what's your solution? And it had better be one that can actually pass congress...

All ingenuous bullshit

All ingenuous bullshit aside, the underlying reason for this push is this; to get 'legal' control of peoples shares/bonds/financial instruments to be used at/in time of crisis(one they would have caused). those clauses will be written very deeply and will be similiar to the clauses allowing the president to arbitrarily enforce bank holidays,call in gold bullion, etc. once your capital is in the 'NEW' tax exempt goverment retirment plan and you signed off on it, you now have a new silent partner you didn't know about.remember the Patriot Act? did you ever think you'd live to see that kind of legislation 10 years ago? i'll bet 1 in a million people have read the fine print of the final draft of this legislation. why anyone would agree to this is beyond me.its bad enough paying taxes on your wealth. :neutral:

This smells less of

This smells less of privatization, and more of increased state involvement in finances. If this is the best that "privatizers" can do, we need to kill this dead, today, before the reputation of privatization is further ruined.

I don't get it. If you think

I don't get it.

If you think the media is biased against privatization, what makes you think they won't just have some dimwit Republican politician defending it later?

If you think they are unbiased, then why won't they have a smart advocate representing the pro-privatization side during this debate?