Thom Hartmann lays out the theory that the real purpose for this administration pushing Social Security reform is to attract the young demographic, the only age group Bush did not win in this last election, so the Republicans can rule for the next 50 years. And, it seems it's working. Those under 30 are the only age group that view private accounts favorably.
In other words, we may win the fight to retain Social Security, but we're not fighting for the same prize as the Republicans.
Even if we win, we lose. The Republicans will just claim that they tried to give a better retirement to today's young people, but those evil Democrats wouldn't let them.
Maybe this is why Bush keeps pushing Social Security in the face of widespread disapproval.
A snippet from the article follows the break.
But the real Republican agenda here has little to do with Social Security. (Energizing "free market conservatives" like Greenspan, who have always thought of Social Security as socialism, is a bonus freebie, as is any payback to Wall Street for campaign donations.) It's really all about capturing the only demographic that voted as a block against Bush in 2004, to establish a future fifty years of Republican single-party rule.
This is why it's so critical for Bush to carefully control who's allowed into his "conversations" about Social Security around the country. It's why the former Swift Boat folks are running such openly deceptive ads. It's why our tax dollars are illegally being used to push propaganda on young Americans about Social Security (propaganda that's even being repeated on youth-friendly venues like The Daily Show). And it's why otherwise rational and even usually honest Republicans are (although occasionally only mildly) "supporting the President" on this issue.
And, most important, it's why Bush won't put forward a program to "solve" the funding problems that Social Security may or may not face 30 or 40 years from now, but instead simply talks about the "problem," and how he wants "young people" to get a "better return" and have "greater control" over their Social Security "investment." It's why he most likely will never put forth a comprehensive program: It'll conveniently be declared "dead in the water" because of "Democratic opposition" even before it comes out.
And, thus, "win or lose," Bush and the Republicans will psychologically win big with the under-30 demographic.
In fact, studies show Republicans may have already accomplished much of their goal. Even though there is no official "Bush plan" for Social Security, USA Today reported on February 16, 2005: "Support for Bush's plan is highest among the under-30 crowd, the only age group in which backers outnumber doubters."
I think we need to make sure that the true projections for SS versus private accounts are known and that Bush is trying to push enormous debt onto their shoulders. I also believe we need to highlight the fact that we are trying to preserve the environment, abortion rights and democracy for them. The question is, I guess, how do we reach them?