| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 45° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
February 9, 2005
Showing the Democrats freedom
For too long the media has followed the talking points of the elites of the progressive movement and kept from public view the entire truth on events affecting their lives. A gathering of Democratic senators at the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial the day after President Bush's State of the Union address is a prime example. Barely reported in the media, Brit Hume of Fox News reported this event was "to invoke the image of FDR" in calling on President Bush to remove private accounts from his Social Security proposal. But it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." I guess you could say FDR thought of individual retirement accounts 50 years before President Reagan really got them going. But there is more. Democrats also don't want you to know it was they who first tapped Social Security for general budget use; amended the system to allow taxation of benefits (another FDR taboo); and increased the age at which people qualify for full benefits. When I first began working the age was 65. Now for me it is 66 and for my wife it is 67, and the Democrats haven't even started to patch it yet. Simply put, their ideas will not hold up under close scrutiny or critical evaluation. This is shown by their unwillingness to argue specific pros and cons of their positions. Instead they use demeaning and derogatory name-calling such as Sen. Kennedy saying, "the only problem facing Social Security is George Bush and the Republicans." Either the man has no integrity left or he has succumbed to the ravages of senility. In pressing their agenda, they will invoke class envy by once again calling for raising the top income for which Social Security is collected. They may also call for raising the current 12.4 percent tax, or again raising the age requirement to collect or who knows what other stopgap measure in a vain attempt to keep the system as it is. What they don't want to discuss and will put every resource they have to keep out of the public eye is the fact the system is going bankrupt, period. Some have already begun saying it isn't so and will never go bankrupt, even if the system has to be changed to pay only 74 cents on the dollar of promised benefits. Excuse me? If you or I or anyone else were to go to a creditor and tell them we could only afford to pay them 74 cents on every dollar we owe them, they will assume a bankruptcy court made our decision for us. Otherwise, they will fully expect to receive the entire amount due them. This holds true for every form of corporation or individual in our country, excepting of course Congressional Democrats and liberals. Thankfully, it has not always been this way. More than 20 years ago Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a liberal from New York, warned Social Security was going to fail if basic changes were not made. President George Bush is asking the changes recommended then be made today because to continue to do nothing is worse. No matter what they say, the system will begin collecting less than it pays out in just 12 years. After that, the upward spiral of taxes needed to provide benefits will make our current deficit look like being short on lunch money at school. To do nothing is simply not acceptable. And it won't be easy. An example of why might be the response to the President's call for allowing a portion of the funds generated to be placed in private accounts similar to current Roth IRA programs. In his response, Nevada Sen. and minority leader Harry Reid called such a tactic "gambling." Yet in 1999, on Fox News Sunday, he said: "Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector." Of course, this was during a different president's term. As you can see, the liberals will continue their tactics of delay and denial. They have no other choice for they have painted themselves into the proverbial corner. They used fear of loss on seniors in two recent presidential elections with great success. Since they don't stand for much else supported by the people, they cannot allow this issue to be solved. With similar policy challenges facing state and local governments everywhere, the question is how long before they quit offering alibis and begin fixing the problems. The answer must be "Not Long" and it is up to us to let them know it. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
