here is the response i sent to Mr. Wendland. It reflects my view of the current US social security system for what it's worth. Please don't flame me, it's just a point of view...
I have heard both sides of the social security issue and I have to admit, your numbers do seem more realistic. However, as you competently argued we must not dwell on whose numbers are less cooked, because the truth is no one can accurately predict what will happen in the next 15-75 years. Therefore I must move on to the more abstract “philosophies” (or schools of thought) on which method would be better for social security in the long run. That is where I respectfully disagree with you. Here is my line of reasoning.
The first statement I disagree with is this one:
Their real aim, however, is to shift the government’s role
from protecting the economic future of retiring and disabled workers
to providing trillions of dollars for already wealthy investment firms.
This statement reflects a fundamental disagreement in the role of government. You claim the government should be responsible for paying for people’s retirement and preparing for their economic future. While this sounds like a noble undertaking, it has a striking and serious flaw. The US government over the last 50 years has a horrible track record on social programs. You mentioned job training and education, yet despite spending more money every year on education, our system (with the exception of universities which are among the best in the world) continues to decay. Other examples of failed social programs are the “war on poverty” and “war on drugs”. Despite the promises after welfare and the last minimum wage increase, poverty still exists and nothing we do (short of making everyone poor, thus remove class labels) will eliminate it. The war on drugs is, if anything, a bigger problem now than before it began. The war on terror may also turn out to be a good example of this premise in action. Only time will tell.
Here is my view on health care costs. Some countries have tried socialized health care with varying degrees of success. Success seems to be inversely proportional to the size of the bureaucracy. Some of the smaller wealthier countries have successfully implemented it. However, going back to my original premise, letting the US government bureaucracy manage our health care system would be a disaster. I don’t see the point in changing a system that draws people from around the world because they want the best health care available and handing it over to a government with a track record of souring what it touches.
One premise to keep in mind when discussing this topic is the role of corporations. It is an unfortunate truth that corporations exist to make money. That is their only motivation. In fact, the definition of a successful corporation is one that is, in your words, “filthy rich”. Without achieving that goal, the company would soon become unable to function and cease to exist. You claim that by controlling spending (on prescription drugs, for example) we can effectively make health care another government program. Hillary Clinton tried that with the flu vaccine price cap. Once the companies, whose only motivation (unfortunately) is to make money, realized they could no longer be profitable in the flu vaccine business because of the price caps, they stopped making them. That is why we were dependent on a foreign source and had the shortage of vaccines this winter.
I hope my general philosophy has shown through in this response. Continuing to allow the government to socialize our retirement will, in my view, cause a bigger problem than allowing it to die. I don’t have a problem with higher taxes temporarily to allow for current recipients to live their lives the way they planned. Also, someday people must realize how racist and sexist our current system is to the advantage of rich white women (because they live longer and therefore receive more benefits). I understand that any alternative promoted by President Bush will automatically be rejected by those who don’t like him, but my hope is that people will start to consider the common good of our nation and come to the conclusion that something has to change. If the only alternatives are communism (shared retirement run into the ground by the government) or capitalism (“rob our parents, us, and our children of the promise of financial security after a life devoted to work” to “line the pockets of the filthy rich”) I chose the lesser of two evils. I am 24 years old, and I don’t want to still be hearing the social security debate when it comes time for me to retire.
Sincerely,
Michael Mullen
|
