People, this isn't actually all that hard. Conservatives hate government-run social programs, ergo, they hate social security. They want to get rid of it, but they can't get rid of it outright because a) too many people actually like it, and b) old people especially like it, and the fuckers vote. So, if you can't outright get rid of it, slowly dismantle it. The nice part about that plan is that you can frame your dismantling under the banner of reform. But to motivate reform, you have to show why you think the system is broken. Hence, suddenly we've started hearing about how social security is going to go broke and how this is an imminent problem.
Thing is, even if the projections are right, social security isn't fucked for several decades. And even then if the economy performs as Bush's budgets says it will, social security will be just fine thank you. But let's assume it is fucked. First of all, I don't even know why we're talking about this now given that the budget and trade deficits are far greater and more imminent threats to long-term economic stability than social security will ever be. But let's ignore that little detail for the moment and go ahead and consider social security. Even if social security is indeed fucked 40 years down the road, as I've said before, it's not fundamentally broken. It's going to have to endure a temporary demographic shift. Ok, fine. You have two choices. You can either infuse it with extra money to tide it over, or you can reduce benefits. Personally, I'm in favor of the latter. Social security should be a welfare program, and people who don't need the money shouldn't get it. Simple. Pick some reasonable rules about who actually needs the money, and then adjust expenses accordingly. Rich old people shouldn't get my money. And I bet if you make that change, you might just have enough left over to pay for a war or two. See? I can compromise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment