Home > Perspective
Why Democrats Really Oppose Social Security Reform
Prominent Democrat Harry Reed, newly elected Senate Minority Leader (replacing Tom Daschle who was booted from the Senate by the people), was on Meet the Press yesterday. Tim Russert brought up Social Security reform. Mr. Reed called Social Security "the most successful social program in History" and then said that our Presidentís plan to convert it into private retirement accounts, invested in the private sector, would result in Social Security being "hijacked by Wall Street." Mr. Reed characterized private accounts as something the left would always oppose. They fly in the face of common sense. Hereís why:
"The elite left, who control the Democratic party, cannot prevail on the merits of their ideology, which in essence sickens the vast majority of the people. They therefore must use bribery and extortion to obtain a voter base."
Independence: The elite left, who control the Democratic party, cannot prevail on the merits of their ideology, which in essence sickens the vast majority of the people. They therefore must use bribery and extortion to obtain a voter base. Seniors are a large and increasing voter bloc. The Democrats attempt to terrify seniors with thoughts of their government checks vaporizing. They therefore must oppose any effort by our beloved President to invigorate Social Security and demonize it as "destroying Social Security." The elite left Democrats hate the idea of personal independence. Ignore their worthless words and judge their actions. They stand in the way of anything that has any real chance of increasing the senior standard of living. They have shown by their actions that they think you incapable of managing your own lives. They have shown by their actions that they believe that you need to have every truly important aspect of your life controlled by them. President Bush frightens the left with the total loss of the leftist Democratic thumb on the necks of their largest constituency. The elite left will wither if seniors are pulling in $100,000 per year or more; they need to keep the elderly poor in order to keep them beholden to them. We conservatives want seniors to be well rewarded for their decades of hard work and productivity.
Efficiency: Nothing motivates someone better than money. Put money in the hands of Wall Street brokers, with the proviso that they only make money in the event that they grow your investment. In effect, make Social Security a no-load mutual fund. Do that, and the fund managers will of their own self-interest grow that money! Thatís why our Presidentís reforming Social Security would lead to a huge increase in benefits, and an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen.
Proof of Failure: The democrats know what happens when -- not if -- Social Security privatization happens. Their class warfare jingo-lingo decries a windfall for Wall Street. I say Bring it On! You bet that there will be a Wall Street Windfall! But remember that Wall Street, by and large, makes its money as a small percentage of the profit that the investment realizes. So, the larger the profit Wall Street sees, the larger the profit that the retirees see! No more magic tricks where Gen Aís retirement is paid for by successive generations. Retirees will have their own money and a heck of a lot more of it. No more dog food, no more fixed-income blues. Many will make a higher income retired than they did in the workforce! Now that is the way to reward the hard work of our wisest citizens! This would prove the Democrats to be the fearmongering failures that they are.
Ownership: When my mother-in-law died fron cancer at age 62, she had paid into the Social Security system her whole life. She never retired. She got nothing for her "investment." In fact, based on the law as it is, she did not even qualify for the paltry $255 "death benefit." That money is gone. And Harry Reed has the galling audacity to call Social Security "successful," in fact the "most successful social program in History?" Our beloved President wants the person to own his or her account, and furthermore, to pass it on to his or her heirs. This means that the government loses control over your money. While a true conservative loves such a proposition, that idea sickens the control-freak governmentophile leftists. Unless they have their stranglehold over your wallet, they cannot force you to vote for them. And less than one in five of us would voluntarily vote for their tyrannical proposals.
We need to remember that our President won a mandate while running on Social Security Reform! John Kerry used the normal class-warfare, rich-versus-poor rhetoric (how ironic coming from the richest man in the Senate) to fight it, yet he lost convincingly, notwithstanding an all-out media blitz for him and against our President! So, as far as I am concerned, the President and the Congress have been tasked by the People to do exactly that which our President now plans to do. Representatives and Senators who oppose this do so at the risk of the wrath of the People on Election Day.
Everyone from age 18 to 120 realizes that Social Security, far from being successful, is noting more than a "Robin Hood," program, designed by the Democrats to create dependence upon the Government and specifically the Democratic party. As Social Security has not been "destroyed" in the 16 years of Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush term one, it will not be "destroyed" in term two. In fact, our Presidentís beloved plan will truly be the most successful government program in History, as it removes governmental inefficiency and interference from our lives.