May 8, 2005

THE WHOLE BALLGAME:

Turning away from government (George Will, May 8, 2005, Townhall)

Were [Pat] Moynihan still with us, he, unlike today's mostly unreflective Democrats, would articulate why President Bush's proposal -- the explosive combination of progressive indexation of Social Security benefits and personal retirement accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes -- is dynamite packed around the foundation of the Democratic Party's edifice of belief. That foundation is an ethic of common provision through government.

Progressive indexation -- larger benefits for the less affluent -- would mean that for the more affluent 70 percent of Americans Social Security would be of diminishing significance as their affluence grows, with dwindling relevance to retirement planning. This 70 percent would be the portion of the population most able to take advantage of personal accounts. And it would possess more than 70 percent of society's political skills -- the will and ability to get the attention of politicians by articulating grievances and participating in politics by financial contributions and other means.

Progressive indexation is means testing politely labeled, and means testing, however labeled, is an attribute of welfare programs.


Lost in the criticism of the Democrats for being obstructionist is the sad fact that the Party's survival is dependent on the status quo--combined with their lack of ideas and their estrangement from most Americans on social issues, the means-testing of the welfare state would be devastating.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 8, 2005 10:12 AM
Comments

The whole dabate is stupid anyway. I just looked at the info that SS sends me every year. At age 66, they project that I'll get a monthly SS check of $2000. DUH! That's $24,000 a year. What the heck good is that? My current house (admittedly too large for a retiree) has $13000 a year property tax, and $1500/yr municipal water/sewer/garbage bill.

Posted by: ray at May 8, 2005 1:37 PM

It's been funny to watch how little NPR and some other leftist outlets understand that the "core" of the Democratic party will fight means-testing to the death. Schumer, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and others have condemned it. But the 'brainy' left talks as though it is an acceptable solution (for them). Ha! They just don't understan social insurance, do they?

Means-testing will lead to a host of unwanted steps, among them 'new' investments, and possibly creation of the mythical "lockbox". Even Al Gore might be speechless with that.

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 8, 2005 4:12 PM

Ray: why should you need a smaller house once you retire? Are you planning to shrink?

Posted by: joe shropshire at May 8, 2005 4:21 PM

There is already some means testing built into the current rules. Social Security takes away roughly 50 cents from a retiree for every dollar earned above $25K-32K.

Posted by: Gideon at May 8, 2005 9:01 PM

Mr. Shropshire;

A bigger house means more cleaning, more maintenance, regardless of whether you use the entire thing or not. A smaller house means less, so one should get the smallest house that fufills one's need for space. Of course, if you and the spouse disagree on how much space you "need"...

Mr. Hamlen;

The inability to comprehened the Law of Unintended Consquences that is a defining characteristic of the "brights". Their intelligence shines so brighly on what they want that they're blinded to the secondary effects in the shadows. It's quite ironic that they might pay the price this time, instead of someone else as usual.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 9, 2005 9:11 AM
« DOES HE EVEN HATE THE PARTY ENOUGH TO BREAK IT?: | Main | MISUNDERESTIMATION: »