|
| |
A Plan, a Plan, Their
Kingdom for a Plan
Politics/Frank
Salvato, Managing Editor |
April 29, 2005
- As some of the more critical issues facing our
nation finally start coming before those we elected to examine, debate and
resolve them, one thing has become tragically apparent. The majority of
those on the left side of the aisle have arrived ill-prepared to do the
business of the 109th Congress, and unwilling to do the business of
government.
It is incomprehensible that leaders of a major political party would put
party politics and special interests ahead of the needs of the American
people. That is exactly what the leaders of the Democratic Party are doing
as the much anticipated Social Security debate begins.
Those who enjoy stuffing their ears with their fingers while ignoring the
obvious will argue that Social Security is solvent and will be for years to
come. These are the same people who believe that they are financially
responsible because they haven’t hit the limit on all of their credit cards.
They have a debtor’s mentality and are incapable of any meaningful debate on
Social Security. Their idea of planning for the future is a cold case of
beer and a spare roll of toilet paper.
President Bush, prepared with a plan, has dared to touch the third-rail of
American politics. Having taken the time to read the original Social
Security proposal laid-out by Franklin Roosevelt the president has suggested
that we complete what is only partially accomplished.
As much as the revisionists of the liberal left don’t want to admit it,
Roosevelt’s original Social Security proposal had three elements including
the third, "voluntary contributory annuities.” A voluntary contributory
annuity, translated from the language of the early 20th Century, refers to
privatization. Roosevelt described them thusly:
"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."
President Bush’s proposal for voluntary personal retirement accounts follows
Roosevelt’s idea of voluntary contributory annuities, albeit at a
significantly lesser percentage, trusting a portion of payroll taxes – and
Social Security’s well-being – to the superior American system of
capitalism. Look at the dismal effectiveness of government run programs
compared with the performance of similar private sector programs to see the
benefit. Comparing public education to private illustrates my point quite
well.
Still, not wanting to be one to play partisan politics with such a serious
matter, President Bush reached out to those in the Democratic leadership. In
his 2005 State of the Union Address the president said that although he
supports voluntary personal retirement accounts (something that Alan
Greenspan also supports), he considered all options to be on the table.
"Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review
of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees.
Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits
to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President
Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux
suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The
late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits
are calculated. All these ideas are on the table… I will listen to anyone
who has a good idea to offer.”
Now the time has come to engage in an "open candid review of the options.”
But it appears the brain trusts of the minority Democratic Party have come
to the political negotiating table armed not with well thought out
alternatives to the proposals of their counterparts but with only an
unspecific strategy designed to oppose, denigrate, obstruct and malign.
To date, there hasn’t been one Democratic member of Congress who has offered
any significant or realistic plan to save Social Security. In fact, the only
thing that we hear from the Democrats is that they won’t take their fingers
out of their ears until President Bush takes the 2005 incarnation of
Franklin Roosevelt’s original idea of voluntary contributory annuities
(voluntary personal retirement accounts) "off the table.”
While Barbara Boxer alleges that the successful privatized retirement system
of Galveston, Texas has failed and Ted Kennedy rambles on interminably about
Abu Ghraib, where are the ideas from the Democratic Party? Is the only
solution they have to the problems we face taxes? Are more taxes, higher
taxes, expanding the parameters on who can be taxed and what can be taxed
their revolutionary new plan for the future of America?
Of course that leads to a more relevant question about the Democratic Party:
Why do people keep voting for them?
Related Reading:
Research Note #15: The Roosevelt Administration’s Proposal for Voluntary
Annuities
http://www.ssa.gov/history/voluntaryannuities.html
President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html
For Some, Social Security is a Thing of the Past
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3153143
|
|
