From Obsidian Wings:
The men in my family of my father’s generation returned home after serving their country and got jobs in the local steel mills, as had their fathers and their grandfathers. In exchange for their brawn, sweat, and expertise, the steel mills promised these men certain benefits. In exchange for Social Security taxes withheld from their already modest paychecks, the government promised these men certain benefits as well. . . .
As George Will noted on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” yesterday, the President’s Social Security plan is designed to reframe Social Security as “welfare.” Stephanopoulos immediately agreed. “You’ve cracked the code,” he said. . . .
My father, God willing, may live another 20 years or so, well into the stage when Bush and his silver-spoon-inheriting cronies intend to reframe the rhetoric. I expect this to become a very public debate. So, for the record, let me state that the first schmuck foolish enough to suggest my father or any of the retirees of his generation are “welfare recipients” will feel the full force of my boot up his ass, and then I’ll get really angry.
The attack on Social Security has never been about money. It’s about ideology. Bush’s goal is to eliminate Social Security, not reform it.
Reframing Social Security as a welfare program may succeed in turning younger members of the middle class against it. Past the age of 55 or so, almost everyone considers Social Security a retirement insurance program, well-earned insurance at that. I don’t think older people will be fooled by efforts to brand it as welfare. We’ve all heard tax breaks and government subsidies described as “corporate welfare” or “agricultural welfare,” but name me one CEO or farmer who’s ever sent the check back.
See, the welfare recipient tar baby won’t stick to well-off upstanding citizens. There won’t be any stigma attached to their Social Security checks. The tar baby will stick to poor people and minorities – their Social Security will be welfare, not ours. The more I think about it, the less convinced I am that reframing Social Security as a welfare program will help the ideologues of the right destroy it.
Still, that’s their intent, and I pray they fail. I’m not poor, nor am I a minority. I even have a pension from the US Air Force. But once I have to quit working, I’ll have a hard time making ends meet without Social Security. Of course, I could always sell my house – as at least one senator is now proposing as a viable retirement plan!
Dick 05/03/05 11:59 AM
This is the first I’ve heard of calling retirees on Social Security “Welfare recepients.” Man, that is bad but I never heard anyone in the Bush administration say that.
I have a buddy who is an accounting whiz who did the unthinkable: he actually spreadsheeted what would happen to the individual if Bush’s plan for privatization was implemented. The assumptions were: (1) 32% of the person’s Social Security contribution was invested in an S&P 500 Index Fund with less that .5% charge for administration (these funds already exist), (2) the S&P 500 would continue to perform as it has since the inception of Social Security, (3) the current tax laws remain the same, (4) on retirement, the account would be converted to a single pay, joint survivor annuity (lots of those are out there).
The results were interesting to say the least, not only in what the annuity would pay, (approximately what Social Security is now paying) but what the government would get back in taxes (much more than would have been withheld for Social Security) over the persons remaining lifetime. Granted, this all takes sixty years to play out and assumes the politicians wouldn’t screw it up, which they most certainly would do. Which is probably why it is a bad idea to begin with.