Social Security

I consider Social Security one of the greatest achievements of American government. I take my vote seriously and consider more than just a single issue when I vote. I must admit, that I would vote for a lesser candidate if he or she was the only one in a race that would protect Social Security; it is that important. The notion of privatization has been raised in recent elections and it has inspired me to become more active in politics. I was once content to stand in the shadows, refusing to accept a party label, and voting every year. Now, chiefly as a reult of the threat to Social Security, I feel compelled and drafted into fighting for the principles of the Democratic party.
I supported Gore in the 2000 election. Hindsight is 20/20 and I feel confident that most Americans, an even bigger majority than in 2000, now believe that Gore should have been elected. Countless Floridians, Ohioans, and voters in other closely contested states now regret having cast for their vote for Bush. Consider how different our nation might be. Over two thousand brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines would be alive because Gore would not have made the mistake of launching an ill-conceived war. I promise you that Gore's response to Katrina would have been more swift, effective, and done with a great deal more compasssion and urgency. Rather than focusing on Iraq, we would be concentrating more on the threats that are posed by North Korea and Iran. It's even not outside the realm of possibility that 9/11 would not have happened.
I know I've gone off on a tangent, but despite all of the good things Gore would have done if he had been elected instead of Bush, none of these were the centerpiece of his campaign. Other than the charges of fraud and corruption that engulfed the election process, Gore's near victory will be remembered for the "lockbox". Gore probably didn't use the best language or frame his plan for Social Security in the best rhetoric. His repeated use of the term "l ockbox" left him open for mockery. However, the plan was sound and would secure the safety net that so many Americans now rely.
As I have said in previous posts, the prevalence of poverty in a civilized democracy like America is inexcusable. Welfare is not the cure for poverty. It is disingenuous to characterize Social Security as welfare. Social Security addresses the danger of poverty for millions of aged, disabled, widows, and orphans. For the most part, however, the program is not funded by the general public. It is funded by the beneficiaries own money. The program solves a part of the poverty problem without an unfair restribution of wealth. It's brilliant. Shouldn't we expect our government to find creative solutions like this to the problems we face?
I'm proud to be a member of a political party that would fight to defend such a valuable and necessary program. Social Security has been around for decades and is a shining symbol of the core beliefs of the Democratic party. We believe in fiscal responsibility and fair and equal opportunity and treatment for all. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I can tell you what is wrong with the alternative. The alternative, should we foolishly explore Bush's privatization proposals, is handouts. By reducing benefits, whether it is for all participants or just those who choose to opt into Bush's plan, more Americans will fall into poverty. Let's not be naive, as the Republicans are, that everyone who choose to invest on their own will be successful. Investing always involves risk. Some get lucky, but sadly, some do not. This precisely is the reason why Social Security exists.Investments failed horribly causing the Great Depression when poverty was at record levels. Those whose investments fail, need help. Government can not, nor should it, simply turn it's back on these people. They will then become a burden on ordinary law abiding taxpayers one way or another. If the govermnment helps them in the form of welfare handouts, the taxpayer pays the bill. If the government provides no assistance, these unfortunate souls will be forced into illegal means for survival, causing a burden to law enforcement and less security for everyone.
I recognize the fact that Social Security is facing challenges is in the coming decades. The number of people from the "baby boom generation", born between 1945 and 1965, will soon outnumber the number of wage earners who are paying into the system. Some changes are in deed needed, however, nothing as dire and dramatic as privatizationis warranted. It may be necessary to change budget priorities and allocate more revenues toward Social Security. At a minimum, we must secure the social security revenues into a fund, or "lockbox", if you will, earmarked only for Social Security. Republicans advocating privatization lose all credibility for their dire forecasts when, at the same time, they pilfer social security revenues for their own pork barrel projects. As unpopular as it may seem, sometimes tax increases are necessary and may be justified to maintain solvency to Social Security. As a last resort, reducing benefits for the less vulnerable in order to to protect the most vulnerable may be needed, but should be avoided.
The choice we face on the issue of Social Security is simple and obvious. Do we choose to set aside a small portion of everyone's income to create a fund that will assist them should their life take an unfortunate turn? Or, should we let everyone have their money now and face the prospect of giving more handouts and higher crime in the future? In my opinion, anyone who chooses the latter is myopic, greedy, and foolish. The fact of the matter is this: most people can not adequately plan for their financial future. Sudden catastrophes such as disability, due to aging or trauma, or the death of an income provider, can happen to anyone, propelling an entire family into a life of poverty instantly. Social Security is not only the most pragmatic approach to the problem, it is the right and just thing to do.