(Thanks to Tim Goddard at Sound Politics)
The democrats are losing their collective minds because President Bush has hijacked one of their center-piece issues: Social Security. They are, rightfully, terrified that he's going to find a way to fix Social Security in the face of democrat opposition... the political fallout for success in this endeavor doing almost incalculable harm to the leftists.
Tim Goddard provided a few hundred words of wisdom for us all by excerpting Eric Earling's fine effort in the Everett Herald this past Sunday:
Published: Sunday, February 20, 2005
Don't run from a healthy debate
By Eric Earling
A recent article in The Herald cited the concerns of a retiree opposed to Social Security reform because it's "too complicated." Unfortunately, younger workers like me don't have the luxury of relying on that answer - which is an excuse symbolic of the shoddy arguments of those reflexively opposing such reform.
One clear indication those opponents have erred is left-leaning elements of the press are opining against them. The Washington Post's editorial page and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof have both chastised nay-saying partisans for obtusely refusing to debate the issue.
These partisans have been relying on two disingenuous claims to defend their refusal:
1) "Social Security will be fine until 2042." In reality, Social Security's trustees have said the program will begin running a cash deficit by 2018, meaning more benefits being paid out than payroll taxes coming in. Opponents claim at that point we'll simply tap the Social Security Trust Fund, which will be solvent in theory until 2042. One problem: the Trust Fund is functionally empty.
True, it holds special U.S. Treasury Bonds. But turning those bonds into cash for Social Security to make up its deficit would require money from the annual federal budget (national defense, homeland security, Medicare, etc.). At the same time we read stories about current deficit challenges it is ridiculous to think we'll simply dig deeper into the regular budget to pay for Social Security. 2018 is the date that matters.
2) Opponents describe personal accounts invested in mutual funds of stocks and bonds as "gambling" - a stunning, direct insult to every American who relies on a 401(k) or IRA for their retirement savings.
Such slander is intended to scare older generations, among whom personal investments in stocks and bonds were more rare and pensions in both the public and private sectors were more commonplace. Yet the true beneficiaries of such reform, younger workers, are already employed in a workforce where pensions are commonly unavailable, except for government employees whose unions are ironically opposing reform.
More....
This is yet another in the series of obstructive efforts on the part of the democrats. They oppose this... not because it isn't right... but because President Bush wants it. That appears to be the entire motive they need to act like spoiled punks on the playground.
As yet another example of their bogus fear mongering, Tim goes on to tell us:
"Take, for example, Democrat Rick Larsen of the 2nd District. This Saturday, Larsen is having a town hall meeting on Social Security reform--at the Everett Senior Citizens Center. That's right, he's having a discussion of a reform plan that will not affect anyone over the age of 55 at a senior citizens center. There's only one reason to do this--to scare the elderly into thinking that the mean ole' Republicans are going to take their Social Security away. But I'm not going to let them get away with it--and I hope you'll help."
Amazing. And, despicable... or "outrageous," as our ultra-leftist colleagues tell us.
The democrats are losing their collective minds because President Bush has hijacked one of their center-piece issues: Social Security. They are, rightfully, terrified that he's going to find a way to fix Social Security in the face of democrat opposition... the political fallout for success in this endeavor doing almost incalculable harm to the leftists.
Tim Goddard provided a few hundred words of wisdom for us all by excerpting Eric Earling's fine effort in the Everett Herald this past Sunday:
Published: Sunday, February 20, 2005
Don't run from a healthy debate
By Eric Earling
A recent article in The Herald cited the concerns of a retiree opposed to Social Security reform because it's "too complicated." Unfortunately, younger workers like me don't have the luxury of relying on that answer - which is an excuse symbolic of the shoddy arguments of those reflexively opposing such reform.
One clear indication those opponents have erred is left-leaning elements of the press are opining against them. The Washington Post's editorial page and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof have both chastised nay-saying partisans for obtusely refusing to debate the issue.
These partisans have been relying on two disingenuous claims to defend their refusal:
1) "Social Security will be fine until 2042." In reality, Social Security's trustees have said the program will begin running a cash deficit by 2018, meaning more benefits being paid out than payroll taxes coming in. Opponents claim at that point we'll simply tap the Social Security Trust Fund, which will be solvent in theory until 2042. One problem: the Trust Fund is functionally empty.
True, it holds special U.S. Treasury Bonds. But turning those bonds into cash for Social Security to make up its deficit would require money from the annual federal budget (national defense, homeland security, Medicare, etc.). At the same time we read stories about current deficit challenges it is ridiculous to think we'll simply dig deeper into the regular budget to pay for Social Security. 2018 is the date that matters.
2) Opponents describe personal accounts invested in mutual funds of stocks and bonds as "gambling" - a stunning, direct insult to every American who relies on a 401(k) or IRA for their retirement savings.
Such slander is intended to scare older generations, among whom personal investments in stocks and bonds were more rare and pensions in both the public and private sectors were more commonplace. Yet the true beneficiaries of such reform, younger workers, are already employed in a workforce where pensions are commonly unavailable, except for government employees whose unions are ironically opposing reform.
More....
This is yet another in the series of obstructive efforts on the part of the democrats. They oppose this... not because it isn't right... but because President Bush wants it. That appears to be the entire motive they need to act like spoiled punks on the playground.
As yet another example of their bogus fear mongering, Tim goes on to tell us:
"Take, for example, Democrat Rick Larsen of the 2nd District. This Saturday, Larsen is having a town hall meeting on Social Security reform--at the Everett Senior Citizens Center. That's right, he's having a discussion of a reform plan that will not affect anyone over the age of 55 at a senior citizens center. There's only one reason to do this--to scare the elderly into thinking that the mean ole' Republicans are going to take their Social Security away. But I'm not going to let them get away with it--and I hope you'll help."
Amazing. And, despicable... or "outrageous," as our ultra-leftist colleagues tell us.
No comments:
Post a Comment