![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm a centrist - a social liberal and fiscal conservative. That's why I view the newest Republican Social Security measure (described here) with mixed emotions.
I agree with the concept of separating the social security tax receipts from the rest of the federal tax receipts. They should have been that way from the start. For one, it would make social security less of a pork barrel funding source and political football. For another, our retirement funds could not be used to mask the size of the ballooning federal deficit, which is how they are used now. Also, it would budgetarily match social security revenues with expenses, without the fudging and shell game that congress has used for years as an excuse to raise the taxes and cut benefits. No more funding blocked by IOUs and interest payments that the government takes the money to make. Cleaner books, a better idea of costs and investment income to the fund - just like real accounts are required to have.
But when they tie it in with "privatization" and other corporate giveaways, I doubt the effectiveness of what they propose. Then it looks like just proposing a new shell game to replace the old. That doesn't fly. I don't want a private account administered by the goverment. Any private accounts I have will be 401(k)s or IRAs that I decide the investment mix on. I don't want the government investing money in their pet pork barrel corporations in my name, and conveniently losing it all after they've pocketed the lobbyists payola. If I make investments in private companies, I want it to be my decision, my risk, and not paid for without my consent.
How, then to make those funds grow? Simple: the government becomes a lender, not a borrower. It's got the best collections racket around, so the default risk would be lower and the rates could be really attractive for both the borrower, and the recipients of the interest (the taxpayer.) It would require the borrower, even if it were the government itself, to show the means for repaying the loan and interest in a reasonable amount of time - a revenue stream, real assets, or both. No more interest only loans to uncle sam.
Maybe I'm an idealist: I want to see this country live up to the promise of the Constitution and the New Deal. The middle class, and it's education and buying power is what has made this country great. To me, part of what I find so disgusting about the Neo-Cons is that they are waging war on the very foundation of our economic might - the middle class. They don't get it - the corporations aren't the source of our technological and productivity advances - the middle class is. The corporations are actually beneficiaries of the New Deal, and the educational, investment and innovation opportunities that it encouraged.
I agree with the concept of separating the social security tax receipts from the rest of the federal tax receipts. They should have been that way from the start. For one, it would make social security less of a pork barrel funding source and political football. For another, our retirement funds could not be used to mask the size of the ballooning federal deficit, which is how they are used now. Also, it would budgetarily match social security revenues with expenses, without the fudging and shell game that congress has used for years as an excuse to raise the taxes and cut benefits. No more funding blocked by IOUs and interest payments that the government takes the money to make. Cleaner books, a better idea of costs and investment income to the fund - just like real accounts are required to have.
But when they tie it in with "privatization" and other corporate giveaways, I doubt the effectiveness of what they propose. Then it looks like just proposing a new shell game to replace the old. That doesn't fly. I don't want a private account administered by the goverment. Any private accounts I have will be 401(k)s or IRAs that I decide the investment mix on. I don't want the government investing money in their pet pork barrel corporations in my name, and conveniently losing it all after they've pocketed the lobbyists payola. If I make investments in private companies, I want it to be my decision, my risk, and not paid for without my consent.
How, then to make those funds grow? Simple: the government becomes a lender, not a borrower. It's got the best collections racket around, so the default risk would be lower and the rates could be really attractive for both the borrower, and the recipients of the interest (the taxpayer.) It would require the borrower, even if it were the government itself, to show the means for repaying the loan and interest in a reasonable amount of time - a revenue stream, real assets, or both. No more interest only loans to uncle sam.
Maybe I'm an idealist: I want to see this country live up to the promise of the Constitution and the New Deal. The middle class, and it's education and buying power is what has made this country great. To me, part of what I find so disgusting about the Neo-Cons is that they are waging war on the very foundation of our economic might - the middle class. They don't get it - the corporations aren't the source of our technological and productivity advances - the middle class is. The corporations are actually beneficiaries of the New Deal, and the educational, investment and innovation opportunities that it encouraged.
Tags: