Political Capital
When people heard George Bush say he was going to use some of the political capital he gained in the election in order to further his agenda, most probably thought he meant that capital would be used to beat down Democrat obstructions. Little did they suspect that what he really meant was that he would use the capital to keep the people who elected him from turning into a lynch mob.
He seems determined to push his "open borders" agenda, something over 90% of self-identiying conservatives oppose and well over 75% of Republicans oppose. In fact, better than half of the entire population opposes any kind of immigration amnesty. So, we can start by assuming that Bush intends to use some of his acquired capital to push something that most Americans oppose. Does anyone else see a problem with this? Does Bush not recall how a representative democracy works?
Now we hear that Bush has relaxed his opposition to raising the FICA income cap. Of course this represents a huge tax increase on people making over $90,000 per year. And of course, this is even being considered because old Triangulatin' George is playing games with the Social Security issue. Instead of moving the discussion about Social Security in the direction a supposed Republican and supposed conservative should: elimination of Social Security altogether, he is proposing this private accounts kludge that has a doubtful affect on the long-term viability of the program and does nothing but harm for it in the short-run. The reason the discussion of raising the cap has surfaced is that in the near term, Georgie-boy's little experiment has a whopping negative fiscal impact on the trust fund. Again, it appears Bush will be using some of his newly-gained political capital to push something almost no one appears to understand or want.
One can only wonder for what else President Bush will attempt to use his rapidly dwindling political capital.
He seems determined to push his "open borders" agenda, something over 90% of self-identiying conservatives oppose and well over 75% of Republicans oppose. In fact, better than half of the entire population opposes any kind of immigration amnesty. So, we can start by assuming that Bush intends to use some of his acquired capital to push something that most Americans oppose. Does anyone else see a problem with this? Does Bush not recall how a representative democracy works?
Now we hear that Bush has relaxed his opposition to raising the FICA income cap. Of course this represents a huge tax increase on people making over $90,000 per year. And of course, this is even being considered because old Triangulatin' George is playing games with the Social Security issue. Instead of moving the discussion about Social Security in the direction a supposed Republican and supposed conservative should: elimination of Social Security altogether, he is proposing this private accounts kludge that has a doubtful affect on the long-term viability of the program and does nothing but harm for it in the short-run. The reason the discussion of raising the cap has surfaced is that in the near term, Georgie-boy's little experiment has a whopping negative fiscal impact on the trust fund. Again, it appears Bush will be using some of his newly-gained political capital to push something almost no one appears to understand or want.
One can only wonder for what else President Bush will attempt to use his rapidly dwindling political capital.
posted by Anonymous | 12:59 PM
3 Comments:
What do you suggest because it sounds like to me that you're saying it's either getting rid of the whole system or keeping the current system in place...I hope I'm making sense there.
I guess I'm saying is isn't private accounts better than the current system, even though we will be limited in what we can put in those accounts???
It's not an either or situation. The whole thing needs to be eliminated. Lock, stock, and barrel.
Bush's private accounts really don't do much of anything to help the system. They are a typical Karl Rove move. They sound interesting to people like you an me who would like to see more of government's functions privatized, but in the end, your return is not that much better than what the trust fund would have returned (assuming you and I ever see a dime of that return, not likely at this point). Your downside risk is not especially high, but obviously higher than the supposed "guaranteed income" in the current system.
If Bush really wanted to provide privatization, he would allow you to opt part of your FICA deduction directly into your own 401K, IRA, SEP, Keogh, or even just into your savings account. That's where the political gamesmanship becomes transparent. Social Security only works on the numbers game that is redistributionism. If the government were to let you and I opt a part of our FICA deduction into a trully private account, and then 10,000,000 others like us did the same thing, the SS pot would go broke in short order. That's why I say this whole plan is nothing but political window-dressing. It does nothing much to improve our return but it does produce a short-term shot in the arm for the financial markets. In my opinion, that's what Bush is after anyway. The market has been doing better lately, but it is still lackluster compared to the Reagan years and the Clinton years.
Every time I hear someone say we are "saving Social Security" it makes my skin crawl. No one seems to address the real issue: there is no Consitutional authority for the existence of Social Security. I needs to be abolished immediately. There is no reason for the government to be in the business of enforcing retirement savings on private citizens.
A 5 year CD at the credit union is drawing 4.40% now...We would get a better return putting our SS money in a CD than what we're getting now under the current system...and we would own the CD.
Post a Comment
<< Home