Since his recent inaugural address, President Bush has vowed to change Social Security by focusing on what conservatives both in and out of the White House generally refer to as privatization. It's a well-chosen word--privatization--as it implies freedom, especially freedom from government interference, and as is well-known, our president has been touting an expansion of his brand of freedom long before his pre-emptive war against Iraq (ironically, the ultimate act of governmental interference).
There is always a cost to freedom, of course, and as the death toll of Iraqis and Americans in Iraq mounts, the world sees what Bush's version of freedom is costing that country and ours. With the proposed, so-called privatization of the social security system freedom would also have its down side--hidden costs that the current administration wants to keep hidden for as long as possible, costs that will further move the country in the direction of giving more power to the powerful while marginalizing everyone else. Sadly, many myopic Democrats play into the current administration's hand by denying the obvious: the social security system in the United States is in a state of crisis. Thus comes their only logical conclusion: if it's not broken, don't fix it. But, since Americans by-and-large know that social security is in a crisis--it's not imploding just yet, but it is in crisis, just ask anyone who has recently reviewed their own estimated future social security benefits provided yearly to all taxpayers by the government--we are left with only the alternative of the president and the right-moving Republican Party. Privatization. I'm tempted to say shame on any Democrat who does not see that our social security system is in a crisis, but instead, I say to hell with them. Tacitly, stupidly they are working for the president.
As has become clear in other countries that have required private retirement accounts, pensioners are not better off post-privatization. Those who benefit from such a retirement scheme are the fund managers, a wealthy lot whose fees keep money from going where it is intended to go--to fixed-income retirees. In America fund managers have big money to acquire under Bush's privatization of social security, so it is no surprise that the financial industry is in support of private social security accounts. Making wealthy people wealthier is not the spirit of the social security system, of course, so it should not be a by-product of social security's revision. But, the frightening thing is not just about rich people getting richer; those are not the hidden costs to privatization, those are unveiled ones.
Peddled as a tool of "freedom" privatization is being used today by conservatives in power to change social security to insure that wealthy individuals stay wealthy, and who knows how it will be used by them in the future. One thing seems certain: it will be a weapon of choice for conservatives. Ask any conservative and you'll learn that privatization as a long-term strategy for governmental and social reform does not end with social security. It's the beginning. And just as the Bush policy of "regime change in Iraq" was not openly translated to its ugly reality--"expensive, huge death toll"--by the current administration, so "privatization" won't be translated by them publicly as "the neo-conservatization of America". But that's what it is. Today's privatized social security is a step towards tomorrow's privatized educational system. As public policy, privatization is a slippery slope. Think of the "freedom" parents would have if education is privatized. Privatized education, with someone like President Bush in office, would equal educational vouchers which would provide parents the "freedom" to send "their" children to "better schools" (read: "religious schools"). Privatized education would be tantamount to killing public education once and for all, intractably merging government with religion, and squelching an education at odds with religious doctrine.
A so-called freedom-producing educational system like that would not, of course, be liberating for everyone. A fair number of people--like the nearly 40% of childless adults in America--would not have any freedom under such a scheme. Ideally, under a strictly "private" educational system, it would be fair and just to make only those who have children be responsible for the cost of educating them. After all, the purpose of privatization is to better a system by removing the individual from unnecessary government interference. Ideally, then, childless adults would be removed from the whole equation; government would get out of their lives as far as education-related money- and decision-making is concerned. No kids, no pay, no say. But make no mistake, a neo-conservative-leaning administration would never, ever think to exclude childless people from bearing the cost of a privatized educational system. They want the childless person's money, but not their voice. Under their clandestine plan for moving the country ever farther to the right, the unspoken tagline of the pro-privatization supporters would be: You pay, but you have no say. Now, if for example the word "childless" is read "gay" or "lesbian", and since a privatized educational system would mean providing vouchers to parents, then under this system, gay and lesbian people would be paying frequently for the religious (largely Christian) and homophobic education of society's future citizens, including its lawmakers. As taxpayers they'd be paying for their own future oppression. If you don't see the problem with this scenario, for thirty seconds imagine you are one of the approximately 4% of Americans who are gay or lesbian and that you are trying to find a job, housing, or physical security in a post-educationally privatized America. Or, if it's more palatable, imagine you are one of the approximately 1% of Americans who are Jewish. Or, if you prefer, substitute "liberal" or "moderate" or "agnostic". The chilling outcome is the same: you are financing your own oppression. Any conservative administration would work to insure that privatization of a government-funded program would pander to the freedom-stealing, the ultra-wealthy resource-robbing, and the Christian conservatives. Basically, they would pander to their own. And that is why privatization is not the solution for social security or for any other large, potentially society-changing governmental program, because privatization is too easily abused by those proposing it.
Call me old-fashioned and idealistic, but in my imperfect world it takes a diverse village to care for the elderly and to provide for the education of "our" children. In my world, everyone should bear social, moral and financial responsibility for its citizens, young and old, without pushing a neo-conservative agenda in the process of doing so. In my world, it takes a village, not a village idiot, to create an America that is a land for opportunity, and not a land for opportunists.