Daily Page | Zebrality | 2010 Football Pool | General Chat | Latest Comments

You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page


Wikipedia does good things. Reward them.

The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • Double Rainbow Guy in Windows Live Ad
  • Skeptoid.com on the Myers-Briggs Personality Test
  • New Glarus Brewing invites fans to weigh in on its 2011 beer schedule
  • UW the big loser in Big Ten realignment
       [ 14 comments ]
  • Glee, Flight of the Conchords featured on 9/26 Simpsons premiere
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Zenyatta Stakes reverting to old name meaning Zenyatta will not be able to win the Zenyatta stakes
  • Target to sell Facebook Credits gift cards
  • Officials: Suspect holding hostages at Discovery Channel
       [ 1 comment ]
  • New Big Ten divisions to be announced 7 pm ET tonight
       [ 77 comments ]
  • UEFA enacts vuvuzela ban
  • Blair: Bush world view had 'immense simplicity'
  • Best. Horserace Call. Ever.
       [ 1 comment ]
  • The Media Loses Readers and Viewers to its Own Radicalism
  • Great Debate: Can Rodgers overtake Favre?
       [ 20 comments ]
  • Homeowne's Fight Involves Flag Tied to Tea Party
  • Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Authorities Were on High Alert for Possible Hijack Attempt
  • Behind the hurricane hype
  • UW-Madison: 17th-best damn university in the whole damn world
  • Social media votes on Aaron Rodgers' beard
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Not so cuddly now: It's claws the psycho squirrel
  • Top 5 Floating Sheep Maps
  • Texas Rep. violated rules, steered scholarships to relatives
  • The smell of freshly-cut grass is actually a plant distress call
  • Why can't Barack Obama tell the world about American tolerance?
  • Anyone Who Wants to Cut Entitlements Clearly Has No Place on a Commission Devoted to Fiscal Responsibility
  • The great Obama-Axelrod-etc. mystery
  • Is the Trade Gap to Blame for Slowing GDP Growth?
  • The six wives of Henry VIII in the movies
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Who's Stupid?
  • Brewers' Gallardo robbed at gunpoint
  • Want to be class president? Not if you're black, in one Miss. school
  • Lance Armstrong Wants To Tell Nation Something But Nation Has To Promise Not To Get Mad
  • Most humble and most arrogant Presidents
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Singles: best soundtrack of the 90's
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Observation Deck: Packers-Colts
  • David Hasselhoff to Compete on ABC's Dancing With the Stars!
  • Solution to the Ground Zero Mosque Dilemma
  • Trapped miners in Chile assuming different roles
  • 'Sportwriters on TV' back on the air ... in Chicago
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Polish man, shot in head, notices five years later
  • Inside the secret world of Trader Joe's
  • Report: Wisconsin & Iowa will be in separate Big Ten divisions
       [ 10 comments ]
  • That buzz you hear? Must be mosquitoes, not interest in Gophers
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Death of a Hero: Brett Favre's Tragic Fall from Grace
  • Rand vs. Ron? Cordoba House Drives Wedge Through The Paul Family
  • Former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman: I'm gay
  • Greeks 'discover Odysseus' palace in Ithaca, proving Homer's hero was real
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Angry Birds eyes a movie/TV deal
  • Coffee shops to customers: get the hell out
       [ 3 comments ]

     

  • To Reform or Not To Reform

       January 17, 2005

    I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this afternoon while running errands at lunch. I don't normally listen to Rush, but I had left my new mix CD at my desk (that CD is awesome, by the way, it has everything from Madeline Peyroux to Velvet Revolver). So anyway, I caught a couple of callers. One young man wanted to convince us that the third world couldn't be successful capitalists because they didn't have any colonies to exploit. Okay there.

    The next caller wanted to talk about the Democrats' opposition to social security reform. The caller made a good point about how the left is always barking about far off potential dangers to the environment, but at the same time are so dismissive about potential problems with our current social security system. Their hypothesis was that Democrats just simply didn't want to do anything as long as it's a Republican President who will eventually get credit for saving the program. That's pretty much the standard theory.

    Rush had a more interesting theory. His comment was that the Left doesn't want to reform Social Security. It's in their philosophical interests not to. Their goal is not a short-term hit on President Bush's agenda, but rather a long term goal to increase the size and scope of the government. I think he's right. Think about it. If we do nothing about social security one of two things will happen: benefits will be cut or taxes will be raised. And let me tell you, benefits won't be cut. A majority of politicians are not going to throw themselves in front of the demographic train of social security recipients. So taxes will be raised. The social security wage limit will disappear (this will be easily justified as a "tax on the very rich"). Ever greater amounts of wealth will be transferred from private citizens to the federal government. The welfare state will grow dramatically and the American Left's dream of a socialist state will be one step closer to reality.

    As Hillary Clinton, in a refreshing burst of honesty, said, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

    I'm not necessarily on board with Bush (or anyone else's) plan to reform social security, because no one's talking about really reforming it and changing what it means to the American people. As Arnold Kling so succinctly put it in Tech Central:

    Today, we refer to Social Security as an "entitlement." In the 1930's, however, that was not the case. It was thought of as social insurance. The difference is significant.
     
    In the 1930's, relatively few people lived significantly past the retirement age of 65. In those days, it would have been foolhardy to save enough to last until you were 80. But if everyone contributed to a collective pool, then we could insure that the few who lived long past retirement would not be destitute.
     
    Since the 1930's, longevity has increased by more than a decade. However, the Social Security retirement age has been raised only a few years. As a result, Social Security no longer represents insurance for the unusually long-lived. It is now an "entitlement" for everyone.
     
    Back when it was insurance, Social Security's tax burden was low, and the benefits clearly flowed to people in need. Today, the tax burden is high, and benefits go mostly to people who had the means, if not the incentive, to save to provide for themselves.

    Those of us around my age are left with a difficult question. Do we support "reform" of the current system (which sucks) and expect to get benefits when we retire or do we too oppose reform on philosophical reasons and then vote like hell against any future measures to save social security for ourselves (in which case we'll be sacrificing every cent we ever put into it)? I'm almost inclined to go with the latter, because it's not like I've ever expected social security to be there for me anyway. And I'm not the only one. Check out the comments on this post at Citizen Smash.

    Heh, maybe the short-term opposition to social security reform will be a motley combination of right wing nutjobs and left wing moonbats. I suspect this isn't what people had in mind when they asked for bipartisan cooperation!


    Posted by at January 17, 2005 03:16 PM

        The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/622

     

    Trackback Entries

     


    Comments

    There are no comments for this story.

     

    yet.

     

     


    To leave a comment you must be logged in.
    Log in here
    or Get an Account here.


      page rendered in 0.2743 seconds | ©2004, 2005 Dummocrats.com