So I'm sitting here watching the golf tournament when the 41st President comes on and says:
"Follow the WEs-- thousand points of WEs--follow the WEs." Are you trying to tell me something, George? I said. "My name isn't George it's deep drive and you should follow WEs."
So I took the advice of "deep drive41" and this is what I came up with:
When is Private Investment Not Private Investment?
Answer:
When you change this language in the State of the Union:
The goal here is greater security in retirement, so WE will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. WE will make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. WE will make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. WE will make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement. WE will make sure a personal account can't be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits. And WE will make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal retirement accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.
To what privatization of Social Security would really encompass:
The goal here is greater security in retirement, so THE GOVERNMENT will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. THE GOVERNMENT will make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. THE GOVERNMENT will make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. THE GOVERNMENT will make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement. THE GOVERNMENT will make sure a personal account can't be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits. And THE GOVERNMENT will make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal retirement accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.
To keep beating the lead, WE = THE GOVERNMENT. After all, who else could he be talking about? I think somebody should be asking who this WE happens to BE. The most interested party to this question should be the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. Because they released a compelling position paper on the subject of when private investment isn't private investment on January 19,1999. Back then the issue was Social Security, and back then they were playing defense.
Here's just a little snippet of the taste nuggets they've served up against their own current cause:
Let there be no mistake: Government investment is not a step toward real reform, but is a gigantic step backwards. Government investment in the private sector is not private investment. It's closer to manipulation of the free marketplace, and as such, actually could undermine the free enterprise system. Again, the President has only flirted with real reform opting for rhetoric that is more dangerous than the problem he ostensibly seeks to solve.
What's Wrong With Government Investment?
Taxpayers' confidence in Social Security is already very low. A poll conducted with GOP pollster Frank Luntz four years ago found that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Clearly, our first goal in reforming Social Security should be to increase people's confidence. Yet, a recent (12/9/98) Associated Press poll showed that while 75 percent of people favored allowing payroll tax receipts in the stock market, 68 percent opposed the government being the investor. Interestingly, the President [Clinton] himself acknowledges this situation: "How will you ever convince the American people . . . since they always believe the government will mess up a two-car parade?" [Orlando Sentinel, 11/29/98]...
Taxpayers have good reason to be wary of government investment. Here's what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had to say about government investment of Social Security receipts in a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on July 21, 1998: "I think it's very dangerous . . . I don't know of any way that you can essentially insulate government decision-makers from having access to what will amount to very large investments in American private industry. . . . I am fearful that we are taking on a position here, at least in conjecture, that has very far-reaching potential dangers for a free American economy and a free American society."
Folks, somebody is going to have to explain to me how WE are able to limit investment choices while at the same time preventing THE GOVERNMENT from forming YOUR investment options.
I don't see any pressure being put on Republicans and President Bush to answer this very basic issue. I'd imagine that many conservatives would like the chance to debate this issue within their own party. "Deep Drive41" thinks they have not yet heard the question. If main-stream reporting on this issue is content to let this facet of the debate go unexplored, the blogosphere has an obligation to explore it ourselves.
If you're like me and "deep drive41" and you can't explain how this privatization plan can actually work in practice, join me in forming a media message, and join us in writing our Republican representatives in Congress and asking them what measures will be taken to ensure that in the quest to privatize, we don't take one giant step toward a socialist society.
When is Private Investment Not Private Investment?
We need to have this very basic question raised by the Republican Policy Committee answered before this process can move forward.
Sincerely,
Chan Man and Bernstein