Chris Suellentrop picks at the threads of the administration's Social Security arguments in an attempt to separate the philosophical/ideological from the pragmatic/mathematical. I've been thinking similarly along these lines and wondering if the the best tactic would be not to challenge Bush's ideological premise, but to ask why, if it's so important to him -- "the philosophical argument of the age" -- he doesn't even come close to fully embracing it.
You know the gist: privatizing SS means giving you more control of your money. Why should the government force you to invest in T-bonds when you can do better investing in stocks?
If you accept Bush's terms of the debate, it's hard to challenge. I certainly don't want the government telling me the best way to invest my money.
But saying that Bush's plan gives you "more control" only disguises the fact that it basically offers you two choices rather than one (or really it offers one and half choices, since you'll only be able to invest a portion of your SS taxes in stocks). If we accept Bush's premise on its philosophical level, how is the right to put a percentage of my money into stocks much improvement? What if I'd rather invest in real estate, gold, Yu-Gi-Oh cards, or hookers and beer? It's my money, right?
Except it's NOT, and Bush isn't saying it should be. We're still talking about taxes being paid into the Social Security. And the purpose of the Social Security system is not to help individuals make the most money possible for their retirement, but to ensure that there is a safety net for society as a whole.
Taken at face value, Bush's philosophical argument of the age is an argument in favor of doing away with Social Security altogether. If it's my money, why is the government forcing me to pay it in taxes so that I can save for my retirement? What if my priority is living fast and dying young?
But Bush isn't saying we should eliminate Social Security. Indeed, he's claiming that we need to SAVE it. That means its important -- and the vast majority of Americans agree. As a socity, we WANT to sacrifice a certain chance for individual gain in order to guarantee that grandma and grandpa aren't thrown onto the streets.
As long as Bush & co. are continuing to embrace the idea of paying taxes into Social Security at all, the grand philosophy of an ownership society is red herring. Of course, it's not unlikely that Bush DOES want to eliminate SS, but knows it would be politically untenable. Which is all the more reason to force him to say what he means and mean what he says, and if he doesn't, tell him to stop talking about the "philosophical argument of the age."
