Democrats Absolutely Against Privatization

Social Security turns 70 years old today and Democrats are, apparently, determined to see the program go another 70 years (if it could even make it that long) without any meaningful reform.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – On the eve of Social Security’s 70th anniversary, Democrats said on Saturday they are ready to move toward revamping the financially troubled retirement program but warned against stripping away benefits to retirees and relying on private accounts for funding.

“We have a moral obligation to stand up and protect Social Security for the next 70 years and beyond — that means stopping privatization and dropping partisan demands for private accounts,” said Rep. John Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, in his response to President George W. Bush’s radio address. . . .

“Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits, and Democrats will fight to make sure that Republicans do not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble,” said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

“Democrats stand ready to address the challenges facing Social Security’s solvency, but this cannot begin until Republicans begin talking about ways to make Social Security stronger, not weaker,” she said.

You know what really amazes me? The fact that Democrats are trying to spin private accounts, which would not only substantially increase the dividends Americans see from the money they pay into Social Security but also lock that money away from greedy politicians who would use it to fund other government programs, into something that is “risky” for Americans to engage in.

]]>< ![CDATA[

What is so risky about it? At the turn of the last century some 52% of Americans owned stocks. Breaking it down a bit, 80% of white Americans and 65% of black Americans already invest their retirement funds in the stock market. If one were to remove children and indigent Americans from those totals so that they only reflected the average tax-paying, working citizen I’m sure the figures would be much higher.

Yet because Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat cohorts tell us that the investment of retirement funds in the stock market is too risky for Americans and their Social Security money we’re supposed to believe them?

Give me a break. After all, what the President is calling for isn’t all that different from the retirement plan Rep. Pelosi and other members of Congress have given themselves. Taking that same kind of system and giving it to Americans and their Social Security contributions is an idea Hillary Clinton seemed to support back in 1994.

Rep. Salazar referred to private accounts as a “partisan” demand, but what are we to think of Democrat opposition to allowing more control for citizens over money they pay into Social Security when said opposition doesn’t seem to be based on the plans themselves but rather on who is suggesting them?

By Rob Port of Say Anything.

Yet another ethical dilemma
Invasion USA?

10 Comments

  1. billbill August 14, 2005
  2. Jeff Blogworthy August 14, 2005
  3. Eneils Bailey August 14, 2005
  4. joe August 14, 2005
  5. Will Franklin August 14, 2005
  6. Les Nessman August 14, 2005
  7. Just Me August 14, 2005
  8. -S- August 14, 2005
  9. Darleen August 14, 2005
  10. OC Chuck August 15, 2005