Suave sophist George Will, who eloquently expresses deceitful logic, pits the generation of 18-29 year olds who, he admits, voted heavily for John Kerry, against the older traditional generation. This Starbuck group of discriminating taste is restive over social security as it exists whereas the Maxwell House generations still favor the old percolating brand of governmental choice less mandate for retirement. If this were the case that the younger generation, used to many options in their lives, and therefore more “autonomous” as opposed to their elders still stuck, I suppose, in the grooves of antiquated LPs, then it would seem that these youngsters would have the panache to take advantage of the IRA deductions on their returns to build an investment nest egg for distant retirement. Or why in using a more perfect logic they would not lobby for lower payroll tax and thus give them greater take home pay to invest? After all, if they are so much more sophisticated and autonomous it would seem that the sequitur would be true to the conservative stand that free souls blest with intelligent choices would know enough to invest early in their lives.
However, and ironically, conservatives know that profligate youth would not do that without the “mommyism” of government to mandate one way or another to invest. The power base of conservatives predominantly affluent really do not care for today’s youth except their own who are already taken care of with trust funds; what conservatives really want is to emasculate social security so they can free-up even more investment money to satisfy their own greed. Were social security only now been a proposal it would not become a reality just as universal health care has been snubbed. The entire concept of conservatives conspiracy over time is to totally eclipse social support of any kind but for agri-conglomerates and corporate welfare.
The tiresome sophistry that social security yields a low return in contrast to higher yielding corporate bond and stocks is fallacious: the fact is the government needs to raid the retirement fund, as corporations raid their own, in order to make up the shortfall of general revenue. The lower yield is by design, otherwise the deficit would be even worse. Of course, the government could establish a higher yield for the fund if it wanted to but then Wall Street would not want that kind of competition which would raise interest rates. And Wall Street certainly would not want the government setting aside a portion of its surplus to invest as a block in stocks and bonds — financial houses much prefer to divide and conquer by cajoling individual accounts.
George Will suggests that the Democrats are stemming the tide of reason by trying to tell the suddenly discovered “progressive” youngsters that traditional social security is not in trouble and should rediscover taste for Maxwell House. But where is Will’s progressive thinking in terms of universal health care or minimum wage? — both of which would net families greater income and thus more revenue for the government. Health care monitored by government would curb the uncontrolled service fees and cost of prescriptions and higher wages would mean more payroll revenue.
Furthermore, the insistent perception of social security as a retirement fund and not a safety net is politics at its worst. Not only does this safety net lift the lives of the disabled and children, but it is a tremendous boon to the economy — what comes in goes out — by centrifuging countless jobs and services, no less than defense purchases that are spread across the land to many corporations and small businesses. The perception that government spending is somehow negative without viewing it as revenue sharing to boost consumption — let alone capital assets — the very backbone of our economy, is dishonest. The dollars you consume at Starbuck keeps its employment thriving and creates millionaires at headquarters.
In addition, it is arrant sophistry to suggest setting aside individual accounts — even without the prohibitive transfer costs — will somehow make them wealthier in their old age, while reducing commensurately the traditional fund.
It would make more sense for an enlightened government to campaign urging youthful generations in the wisdom of taking advantage of tax shelters to supplement retirement, rather than imposing it upon them. Those who wish to drink exotic latte in old age will probably opt for shelters; the rest of us will have to settle for Maxwell House.
Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 18, 2005.
http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com