This is unexpected good news. Half of America Believes Bush Is Trying to Dismantle Social Security. I've been thinking this for a while; what Bush really wants is not a fixed Social Security but a castrated Social Security. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the doubt remains. I think he (and like-minded individuals) have thought for a long time that SS was just a bad idea at the outset, and now's their chance to correct FDR's mistake.
Part of why I think I owe some "benefit of the doubt" is because I often have my head stuck in Talking Points Memo, and they've been referring to "privatization" as "phase-out" for quite a while. I figured the fact that I get a lot of my SS "news" from there, and the fact that it supports the phase-out interpretation, meant that I could very well be falling for some bias.
I figured "phase-out" was a minority view. Few people really want to end Social Security, and few people really believe that the President wants that. Most people, I figured, weren't so steeped in Internet sources. Most people were getting their news from the take-it-at-face-value folks at CNN, and they wouldn't go around calling it "phase-out."
Well, the masses seem to have taken my point of view after all. Are the TV folks doing a better job than I thought? I don't know; I'm just happy to hear it.
6 comments:
Maybe those most affected by changes to SS, are most sensitive to news about it and are hence more critical. The AARP has been doing the right thing in that regard with it's commercials on the topic. Seen it? A plumber says he must tear down the house to fix the kitchen sink.
The "dismantle" perspective seems a bit over the top, but I have forced myself to stop paying attention to this item. I also have trouble "caring" that much because I have never planned on needing social security, it was just something that would be nice to have to help pay the taxes on my other retirement funds. It is easy for me to slip into the "well, if you are relying on social security, then that's just poor planning" and I need a shock of "social awareness" sent through my system now and again.
I'm going to have to take the stat with a grain of salt, at least for now. The article referenced in the link is for WSJ online, and requires paid registration, so until I find a free corroboration on the poll, I'll suspend judgement.
I do recall seeing a series of polls which indicated that a lot of people are not following the issue closely, ie, they believe the accounts will be mandatory, they believe that it affects current SS benefits, etc.
I do find it. . . disturbing that AARP is weighing in on this issue. The minimum age for membership in AARP is 55, and the SS "crisis" occurs in about 40 years. In other words, the people who are least likely to be affected by any changes are trying to prevent changes.
I'm not entirely sold on the President's plan, but I do realise the need for long-term solutions and think that a general re-tooling of SS might be in order.
As far as a shock for your "social awareness": Don't forget that SS isn't just for those that need help after retirement. There are also benefits for those that must retire because of disabilty. That's can be crucial for people that go through hard experiences like Mom did.
(MDC might not be aware of this.) Lee is my sister. Our mom died earlier this year after ALS had disabled her.
Good point about disability; I had forgotten about that. I am a teacher (for right now, at least) and don't currently pay into the system, so I tend to be pretty uniformed. Also please accept my sympathy for the loss of your mother.
Post a Comment