What "Ownership Society?"
OK, OK. Bush is more composed than he was four years ago. He's also scarier. In his State of the Union last night he reasserted his hatred of gays. Failed to mention Osama Bin Laden. Refused to talk about a timetable to depart Iraq. Used grieving parents who had lost a son in his war as a smokescreen. (The networks focused on them of course, instead of his inept policies and proposals). And hinted at the expansion of his crusade in Iran and Syria. Read this great article by Seymour Hirsch if you want to know what we are doing to expand our empire currently.
In case you missed Dubya's diatribe about the ownership society, we'll break it down for you.
Why Dubya's Ownership Society is bullshit:
1. People will have to choose from a small menu of stocks and bonds to invest in. (Mainly companies that are his buddies, presumably since Bush is so adamant about passing this "reform"). If you are told by the government what to invest in, is this ownership?
2. You cannot withdraw any of your money before retirement. Again, is this ownership?
3. From NY Times: "When workers retired, most would be required to use at least part of their accounts to buy from the government lifetime annuities, financial instruments that provide a guaranteed monthly payment for life but that expire at death. Despite Mr. Bush's declaration that money in the accounts could be passed on to children and grandchildren, the principal of an annuity cannot be inherited." Again, is this ownership?
4. It will cost more than $754 billion to set up according to NY Times. That's tax dollars out of your pocket, that you will not, um, own any more.
Bush's plan is an investment plan, which is by definition, less stable than an insurance plan. I'm all for less government control, but when people blow their investments, we're just going to have to reinstate a new incarnation of Social Security to bail them out.
--Robert Lanham
Comments
Bush sucks
Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2005 02:26 PM
It sounds like your main complaint with Bush's proposal is that it doesn't take privitization far enough -- you'd like to be able to keep all your money, invest all of it as you see fit, and spend it in retirement according to your wishes.
?!?
Posted by: Guy | February 5, 2005 12:10 PM
bush in 3056!!!!!!!!
Posted by: fritz | February 3, 2005 10:33 PM
bush is some piece of work. i think i'm going to be sick.
Posted by: aeki tuesday | February 3, 2005 03:50 PM
There is a great piece by Paul Krugman (NY Times columnist, but more importantly the Ford International Professor of Economics at MIT) explaining the shortfalls and inaccuracies of the privatizes pushing for social security reform.
Confusions about Social Security
http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol2/iss1/art1/
Posted by: Jason | February 3, 2005 10:52 AM
I love Bush
Posted by: claude | February 3, 2005 10:44 AM