2008 Woodie Awards
Bush's Bright Idea Burns Out
Destroying Social Security would be a grave mistake for this President.
Meghan Waters
Issue date: 4/15/05 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
Recently, news networks and politicians alike have been blasting President Bush for his Social Security Reform Bill. With all of these negative comments flying around, one must wonder what the bill actually says and why there's such an unenthusiastic public reaction surrounding it.
Social Security was created during the Depression by President Franklin Roosevelt as a safety net for the disabled, widowed, or elderly who did not have a reliable source of income. Other than a few minor tweaks during the Reagan Administration, the Social Security system hasn't been changed since it was originally created. Until now.
At his State of the Union address this year, President Bush made it clear that reforming Social Security was one of his top priorities. When the President submitted his bill to the public, it was instantly dismissed by economists, politicians, unions, and even the AARP. Why such a negative response?
In a nutshell, the bill attempts to privatize Social Security by creating individual Social Security accounts. This way, every worker can choose to invest his or her money into stocks, bonds, or other investments that would give that person a higher return than the government ever could. Sounds like a good idea at first, right?
First of all, the phrase "privatizing social security" is an oxymoron. The word "social" implies the collective, while "privatization" clearly does not. Allowing individuals to control their personal social security accounts completely undermines the ideology of allowing the government to allocate funds to the deserving.
Also, the entire Social Security system doesn't have to be usurped and reconstructed to deal with the suffering funds. A few carefully planned minor changes would handle the problem without having to increase the deficit by spending two to three trillion dollars recreating the system. This country's deficit is already bursting at the seams with the war in Iraq and universal tax cuts. If anything, President Bush should receive accolades for devising the most efficient way to bankrupt the United States Government.
On top of everything else, if individuals are allowed to control their own social security savings accounts, their investments will fluctuate with the state of the U.S. market and economy. What if the economy takes a down turn and all of their savings goes down the drain? Social Security will be forced to pay that person double, squeezing the system for even more money.
Most importantly, diverting money from the Social Security system into the hands of the individual will diminish the amount of funds available to pay beneficiaries like the handicapped or those who have lost a spouse or loved one.
In all, using Republican ideology to fix a system that is grounded in democratic or even socialist principles is irresponsible of the Bush Administration and is spelling disaster.
Social Security was created during the Depression by President Franklin Roosevelt as a safety net for the disabled, widowed, or elderly who did not have a reliable source of income. Other than a few minor tweaks during the Reagan Administration, the Social Security system hasn't been changed since it was originally created. Until now.
At his State of the Union address this year, President Bush made it clear that reforming Social Security was one of his top priorities. When the President submitted his bill to the public, it was instantly dismissed by economists, politicians, unions, and even the AARP. Why such a negative response?
In a nutshell, the bill attempts to privatize Social Security by creating individual Social Security accounts. This way, every worker can choose to invest his or her money into stocks, bonds, or other investments that would give that person a higher return than the government ever could. Sounds like a good idea at first, right?
First of all, the phrase "privatizing social security" is an oxymoron. The word "social" implies the collective, while "privatization" clearly does not. Allowing individuals to control their personal social security accounts completely undermines the ideology of allowing the government to allocate funds to the deserving.
Also, the entire Social Security system doesn't have to be usurped and reconstructed to deal with the suffering funds. A few carefully planned minor changes would handle the problem without having to increase the deficit by spending two to three trillion dollars recreating the system. This country's deficit is already bursting at the seams with the war in Iraq and universal tax cuts. If anything, President Bush should receive accolades for devising the most efficient way to bankrupt the United States Government.
On top of everything else, if individuals are allowed to control their own social security savings accounts, their investments will fluctuate with the state of the U.S. market and economy. What if the economy takes a down turn and all of their savings goes down the drain? Social Security will be forced to pay that person double, squeezing the system for even more money.
Most importantly, diverting money from the Social Security system into the hands of the individual will diminish the amount of funds available to pay beneficiaries like the handicapped or those who have lost a spouse or loved one.
In all, using Republican ideology to fix a system that is grounded in democratic or even socialist principles is irresponsible of the Bush Administration and is spelling disaster.