Ix-Nay on the Rivatization-Pay
Jacob Sullum | February 4, 2005, 2:19pm
Greg Crist, director of communications for the House Republican Conference, liked my column on Social Security. Well, most of it. As he explained in an e-mail message, he did not care for my use of certain explicit language that he feels has no place in public discussion of the president's reform plan:
Every day, we fight reporters and Democrats for using the term 'privatization' b/c every poll worth its salt shows it frightens the public.
And here you write a great article, but use the term in the headline and everywhere else!
Can you help us out please? Dems love to demagogue. We shouldn't help them.
Bad as it is for Republicans to covertly buy the assistance of commentators, it may be worse when they assume you're on their team without having the decency to pay you. For the record, the word privatization appears only once in the column, and not in the headline. But I do use the word private half a dozen times to describe the individual retirement accounts about which the president promised: "The money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away." He also described it as a "nest egg" that "you'll be able to pass along...to your children or grandchildren." Sounds pretty private to me.
Still, it's true that the contributions, investment choices, and withdrawals all would be regulated, so Crist has a point. Maybe "forced, socialized savings accounts" would be a better description, although I'm not sure how well it would poll.
raymond | February 5, 2005, 4:14am | #
How many small businesses could have been created with such wealth? How many investments...?
How many of all those things
would have been created?
Talk about how everyone will save wisely and assure themselves a reasonably comfortable old age - and thus not be a burden (either financial or of shame) on society - is a bit like communist propaganda. It sounds really nice - ideal, even - but human nature doesn't work like that. Especially
young human nature.
I'd estimate that the vast VAST
VAST majority of human beings don't start putting money aside for old age until about 40 years of age at the earliest.
I enjoyed reading the diatribe about how all the genXers and babyboomers are going to gorge on the future of mtc and company. He might consider this, though: The money goes in, the money comes out, the old folks buy stuff, which provides jobs for the younger folks, who get to live long enough to start really providing for their own retirement, and so it goes.
imo, Social Security might better be thought of as insurance for
society, for Social Security allows society to continue functioning more efficiently and more humanely. And it helps everybody get richer. Like capitalism.
Though I am a fierce individualist, I have to recognise that we are social animals. And while I'm sure that mtc and company have made arrangements to repay their genX/boomer parents for the diapers and college tuition as well as worked out plans to house and care for them (for a price) when the time comes, I'm glad my parents have a nice life. And, especially, that they're not having this nice life in _my_ back yard!
Does Social Security need fixing? No doubt. No doubt the entire government debt problem needs fixing. Can SS be fixed in a vacuum? I doubt it. Can it be fixed by an administration which has created this ridiculous deficit? Nope.
And finally, who will really come out ahead thanks to the administration's plans? Common, ordinary, debt-loving Americans? Nope. Stock-market-bubble blowers.
raymond | February 5, 2005, 6:47am | #
But what is the government but a collection of individuals? And since the government is merely made up of individual humans (with all of their inherent faults) isn't the government prone to have all of the same failings as individuals?...
Of course I agree with what you've said here. And I understand that what you say applies to any government action. That's why states have to have constitutions. (And I believe that the Bush administration regularly violates the Constitution and has only disdain for it. qv, Bush's support for the marriage amendment. The "war" in Iraq.)
This is not to say that I think government (state or federal) cannot be an efficient, cost-effective way of providing "social" security or that "social" security is not a valid activity of a government.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
For 66 years, the people of the US have agreed to put their social security into a common pot, better to protect themselves from want.
The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose... He therefore deposits his right in the common stock of society, and takes the arm of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right. (Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man)
If you wish to strengthen society then you're probably using the wrong tool for the job if think that expanding government is the answer.
Again, I couldn't agree with you more. (Though your accusation that "I" want to expand government is sort of annoying. On the contrary, I wrote " No doubt the entire government debt problem needs fixing. ")
Government must raise money with taxes... (etc)
I think one needs to consider first if a government has a valid power/responsibility to oblige people to buy "old-age insurance".
Can the state oblige people who drive to have (civil liability) automobile insurance?
Generally, we accept that it can. The reasoning behind our acceptance is that a driver has to be in a position to be able to "honour" his financial responsibility to the guy he hits. Both the accident-causer and his "victim" are protected from financial ruin by auto insurance.
Is it "fair" that I - who have never had an accident - be obliged to pay such high premiums for something I never "use"? Yes, since I am protected from certain risks, and the society of which I am a member is protected from the burden financially ruined people would be on it.
Where I live, SS is called AVS (
assurance-vieillesse et survivants). This is probably a better name for the programme, since it's very clear that we're talking about "insurance" here. And what risk is being insured against? The risk that I'll live long enough to be a potential burden on society. I can live with that. (We have "3 pillars": AVS, obligatory company retirement fund, and voluntary "3rd pillar", with tax deferments for all three.)
Perhaps such (social security) insurance should be private-but-obligatory, like car insurance. Perhaps the competition of the marketplace should be allowed to determine the "winners". The problem with that approach, though, would be that any losers would leave millions of people in misery. (One need only look at the UK and the pension-funds scandals. Or WorldCom and Enron.)
The most effective (imo) solution would be to set up SS (and AVS) as a semi-private insurance company, with strict separation between the funds it collects and government spending.
As I said above, I think the whole government-and-money situation has to be fixed. I think the Founders would be shocked, dismayed, and ashamed to see what the US has become.
mmc | February 6, 2005, 10:34pm | #
Yes, exactly. Screw them, and screw you too. Tarpaper is one heckuva lot better than what they got in Bangladesh. And why again are dumbass American baby boomers entitled to more goodies than Bangladeshi baby boomers, if such exist?
???
OK so the standard of comparision is that as long as Americans are living just a little better than people who live in the poorest country on the planet we're doing great?
So why should your company give you sick-time or medical insurance or pay you over $200 a year? I mean people in Bangladesh don't have any of these things!
Why should the government build sewage treatment plants or ban companies from dumping poisonous chemicals in our drinking water? The people of Bangladesh have nothing like this!
Why should the government impose safety regulations on companies to prevent accidents that can kill, maim or blind thousands of citizens? The people of Bhopal India had none of those fripperies!! (if you don't know about the leak of poison gas in Bhopal, Union Carbide built a plant there so they wouldn't have to put up with the ridiculous safety codes in the US. There was a leak, thousands died, thousands more were blinded or crippled because their respiratory system was severely damaged by the chemicals. The US has steadfastly refused to extradite any company officials to India for trial and for many years refused to recognize the victims rights to sue Union Carbide)
Much of America has lost the idea of the "common good" Citizens pay taxes so the government can pay for things like mass transit, education, senior retirement childhood nutrition programs, etc. because overall it is good for society. It might not benefit you directly, but it makes America stronger and better which indirectly benefits you. And unfortunately it seems alot of the people who are for cutting government waste are not talking about any program they themselves use.
Some examples:
Several years ago
The Economist one of the leading freemarket supporting publications in the world wrote an extensive article about ranchers out west who will rant about welfare queens and boast about their individualism but will fight tooth-and-nail against the government attempts to charge them fair market value for the grazing lands they rent or the water they get from federally funded irrigation programs.
Personally, I have some friends who firmly believe that since they do not have children and never plan to have any, they should not have to pay school taxes. They really haven't understood that school taxes educate the children who will grow up and eventually be filling you prescriptions in the pharmacy (1gm of digitalis is about
4 spoonfuls, right?) or reading the directions as he installs your new furnace (boom). Apparently, only people with children should pay to educate the people they will need to keep them alive in the future.
okay,,,breathe..breathe..rant over
Sorry about the detour.
Believe it or not, governments are here to do more than deliver the mail and fight wars. They are here to protect us from situations we can't (Bhopal) or thing we didn't anticipate (putting my private..er..personal account in the next Enron or WorldCom) and from our own short-sightedness (Why should I pay for schools?)
A lot of these are things that people no matter how smart or how savvy do not have the resources to survive or, in the case or Bhopal or Love Canal, the power to prevent on their own.
If you want to argue that you "want to draw the line" or not help pay for such government programs, my question is... Why should I pay taxes to support public hospitals for you to use because your company no longer provides health benefits while mine does? Why should my taxes pay to build dams in your region of the country to provide electricity or preserve water in time of drought? I mean you're smarter than the government, you know you can just move if you care about these things. . What right will you have to complain?Why should I pay taxes to the government to administrate and enforce safety regulations at the nuclear power plant or chemical factory or sewage palt down the road from
you?
Finally, Why should the government help you just because your retirement account was in a company that lied to investors and went belly up or you bank fails and you lose your life savings? I mean tarpaper shacks, old newspapers for blankets and on-sale canned dogfood for dinner are better than the people of Bangladesh have. Why, because we are a better scoiety and country for it. Why, because it's often not something you could control. Why? Because directly and indirectly you get a lot of aid and support from the government. Quirt your bitching about the price you pay to keep America what it is or take your tarpaper, move to Bangladesh and let the people marvel at how well off you are.
