Progress for America, the group that produced the "Ashley's Story" ad last fall, is running a new commercial titled "The Right Thing" promoting Social Security reform. The ad will run for the next 10 days on CNN and FOX.
This group also recently ran the ad “Courage”, on the same topic.
Courage is exactly the word for it. President Bush is the most courageous politician in recent memory for having the guts to touch the dreaded “third rail”, especially considering that he could just ignore the issue and pass it on to the next guy (or gal), as his predecessors have.
The AARP doesn't like it and is going to put up a full-court press against the President, but as this letter on a Just One Minute post indicates, the AARP certainly isn't speaking for all Boomers and Seniors.
And for those of us who like to think not only of ourselves, but of our children and their children, the AARP definitely is not an ally.
Cross posted at Badger Blog Alliance.
UPDATE: I've always said that my readers are the smartest in the world. Here's more proof: read the first comment on this blog. Notice in particular this last part of the FDR quote he found:
Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."So FDR himself wanted voluntary plans to eventually substitute for the government plan. Isn't that interesting?
UPDATE 2: A good friend added a comment below, saying that I took FDR out of context. Al Franken, that brilliant intellectual on the left, is saying the same thing.
But even if you grant my commenter (and Al Franken) the point that FDR wasn't talking about supplanting the compulsory Social Security plan with a voluntary one, so what?
There are two main points here. First, FDR assumed that the Social Security compulsory contribution plan would be self-supporting, which it isn't anymore. I don't think we can assume he'd have been in favor of the plan the way it is now.
Second, why should we hang on to a system put in place decades ago when life expectancy was much shorter? I'm tired of paying an exorbitant tax into a system that will give me a lousy return on investment. Why can't we do better than that? That's what President Bush is trying to do: improve a system that is going to be seriously broken, sooner or later. We can quibble about the dates, but that also misses the point: why can't we do better?
Finally, in the end, I really don't care too much what FDR did or didn't want. And liberals shouldn't, either. Let's deal with present realities and future needs, and do something to improve, not discard, a system that needs improving.
3 comments:
Social Security is in a crisis, but the situation doesn't merit "crisis status" by the Democrats. Both Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer publicly stated that there is no crisis, then followed up with (paraphrased) "..in 2042 there will be enough money to pay 70% of benefits..."
It's nice that they don't feel a 30% cut in my benefits is a crisis. Of course, they don't pay into social security, and they aren't in the system to benefit from it (they have their own personal retirement accounts - the same kind Bush wants us to have...); they have no stake in it so why bother to fix it??
Anyway, Bush is really just trying to complete the original plan for Social Security. Here is a quote (source: http://www.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00111.html) out of FDR's speech on the subject in 1934:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
Check out in particular the last line: "...which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans...".
So if that is what FRD wanted, why are the Democrats fighting Bush's retirement accounts so hard?
AUGHHhhhhh...... this gets SO frustrating.
pmm
It's always problematic when one focuses on one portion of a quote without carefully reading the whole paragragh, in this case.
As you'll see below, FDR was referring to "noncontributory old-age pensions" for those who were too old in the 30s to contribute to the social security fund. He was NOT referring to the contributory system that is now the subject of debate. I'm sure you'll want to correct this in a future blog...
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
OK KLN, I may have mis-interpreted FDR's speech. However, that in and of itself does not change the main point of debate on Social Security, and that is that it is in serious trouble.
FDR's vision was "...compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Obviously that system is no longer viable. It is a fact accepted by everyone (including the left) that in 2042 SS will only be able to pay about 70% of scheduled benefits.
Bush is working hard to be pro-active and fix something that is obviously and indiscutably no longer working.
If the Democrats are truly interested in working for the people, then they should be coming up with a solution - they aren't. They can only cry "we can do better" (they aren't), and "Bush is wrong" (no proof on that, and he isn't!).
Private investments as part of the Social Security plan is a smart idea, and one that will bring a more secure future for our children.
Giving control of at least some of SS back to the people who's money it is and who have a stake in the outcome (polititians have no stake in SS) will produce higher returns than any government run system. Want proof? Look at the places that did just this before the government made it illegal to opt out of the system. Well, illegal for everyone except the polititians....
Anyway KLN, how do you propose we fix SS - raise our taxes and reduce benefits?
pmm
Post a Comment