Monday, June 06, 2005


No, even though it's been awhile since I've posted anything; I'm not talking about my retirement. But then again, if the government would implement personal retirement accounts, any discussion about retirement would be a discussion about MY retirement. I'm 36 years old and can name no males in my blood line that lived to see the current retirement age for Social Security. So, when Republican Senator Chuck "Ask Again Later" Hagel talks about raising the retirement age, he's not talking about my retirement. He's talking about robbing me of more than 50 years of breaking my back and bending my neck to pay money into a system that will be used for someone else's retirement. When Democrat Representative Robert "Disenfranchised" Wexler talks about increaasing Social Security taxes, I actually agree with him on raising the cap on taxable income for Social Security. However, he is talking about paying for someone else's retirement, not mine.

Michael Barone writes about the looming problems with retirement over at RealClearPolitics. Unfortunately, he is talking about my retirement. He makes some very good points about Social Security and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Not to worry, say opponents of George W. Bush's proposal for personal retirement accounts. The federal government guarantees the benefits. But it doesn't. In 1960, the Supreme Court, in Flemming v. Nestor, ruled that there was no right to Social Security benefits. Social Security, wrote Justice John Harlan, "was designed to function into the indefinite future, and its specific provisions rest on predictions as to expected economic conditions, which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate, and on judgments and preferences as to the proper allocation of the nation's resources which evolving economic and social conditions will of necessity in some cases modify."

In addition to Barone's evidence that Social Security is not a "right", I'd like to remind everyone just exactly what is the "full, faith, and credit" of the federal government that backs the non-existant Social Security Trust Fund.

full faith and credit -- a pledge of a government to commit its general taxing power to raise funds for payment of obligations. - U.S. Treasury Department

Barone goes on to point out the truly reactionary (or anti-progressive) nature of today's Democrats and the left in general.

Some Democrats attack this plan as hugely risky, because the stock market goes up and down. But the stock market has always gone up over the course of a typical lifetime. The Democrats' more serious argument is that Social Security should be a bedrock guarantee not subject to market risk. But this is antiprogressive: It leaves lower-income workers with less ability to accumulate wealth.

You're damned right it's anti-progressive! Only the well-bred, well-fed, and well cared for are ever going to live to see the retirement benefits promised by Democrats, at who knows what expense to the future worker imposed by the full, faith, and credit of the federal government.

No thanks. Just give me my personal Social Security account, so at least if I die at age 54 like my father, I can at least will my 40 years of hard work and contributions to my daughter, guaranteeing she won't need the government's full, faith, and credit in her retirement. Opposing optional personal retirement accounts is pro-establishment, pro-government, and anti-worker. There is no other explanation for it.


Blogger Mike said...

Or just give me the option to opt out.

8:31 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home