Saturday, January 15, 2005

BUSH BIG LIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY

Today's NYT Editorial puts most Social Security "reforms" on auto-pilot.

But, if the individual is going to be that limited in what they can actually do; why not simply let the Feds invest the money in "safe stocks?"

Perhaps as a demonstration program to reveal to the skeptics the "amazing power" of Wall Street in "wealth creation." Just for of few years to "prove it" to us nay-sayers.


Another reason why the "private accounts" scheme won't work is that Social Security is, alas, at the end of the day:

A RE-DISTRIBUTIVE SYSTEM!

The poor and working classes simply don't make enough money to provide for their retirements.

And, the rich have more than they really need.

So, the notion that we all go into "the system" equal is really a myth.

The low wage retiree does "get more out" than the wealthy retiree in some cases.

And that's called "re-distribution" the last time I checked.

But, since there is a cap on earned income subject to the payroll tax?

Perhaps, there should be a cap on what people can take out: BASED ON INCOME!

I would suggest that a fair solution to "the rich" taking money out of the Social Secruity Trust Fund that they "don't need"----is to stop paying Social Security Payments to those fortunate few who have a PASSIVE INCOME of say, $50,000 per year and up, from rents, interest, dividends, royalties, etc

This would assure that the remaining Social Security funds go to those that really need the money.

To be sure, this would "means test" Social Security.

But, it might also save the system for what it was intended to do:

Provide Social Security!

And, keep old folks out of the poor house, and out of a work force where they don't fit in.

Since Social Security is really just a tax now anyway, and NOT a trust fund, or a "lock box" with your name on it?

Turning the current scheme into SENIOR-FARE, or "Welfare for Seniors with Low Incomes," is not really a that far off the mark.

And any major Wall-Street-Centric Republican changes should be avoided ---until proven valid.

And sorry, Dubya, we ain't there yet....