March 15, 2005
OWNERS OR DEPENDENTS?:
The $600 Billion Man (PAUL KRUGMAN, 3/15/05, NY Times)
The argument over Social Security privatization isn't about rival views on how to secure the program's future - even the administration admits that private accounts would do nothing to help the system's finances. It's a debate about what kind of society America should be.
That's precisely right. It's a choice between a society where you, your employer, your family, and the government act responsibly and put away money now, so that you've funded your retirement by the time it comes and own something you can pass on to your survivors; or one where you're dependent on the State and successive generations. The reasons that conservatives prefer the former and Leftists the latter are obvious enough. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 15, 2005 8:49 AM
One of the biggest problems with Social Security is that's it's become tantamount to retirement funding for too many people. Meanwhile, "retirement" is three times as long and requires 6 times the funding to maintain. It's like nearly every government program: starts out as a safety net and ends up being a hammock. If it still functioned (actuarially impossible, I know) as advertised and was taking only 3% of one's wages and no more than $3,000 overall, one would not be entitled to expect it to provide anything more than a below poverty subsidy. But you start taking 12+% of peoples' paycheck and you can bet they expect you to dole out a pile of dough at the end of the day.
Posted by: John Resnick at March 15, 2005 10:55 AMBack in the day, William F. Buckley told Randall Forsberg (an anti-war moonbat) that the essence of his argument with the anti-nuclear movement was that "you would be much safer being governed by me than I would be, were I governed by you". She could not respond to this.
The same is true here with Krugman. He would be (is) better off in a society governed by the GOP than he would be if the Democrats were in power. Of course, he could be like those snarling New Yorkers who prefer the 1970s. But he seems far too tepid for that.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 15, 2005 2:37 PM