I know...I know - what could be more fun? Anyway, my editorial appears below the fold. It's just a simple letter to the editor, pretty tight, I believe - but it could always be better.
Dear Editor,
I read with amusement Rich Lowry's editorial entitled "President should focus on private accounts, not 'crisis,'" which was published on Sunday, January 30. In it, he urges the President to focus on Social Security reform, and private accounts, rather than any perceived "crisis" in Social Security.
Lowry fails - or is unwilling - to grasp that the sole reason for Social Security debate is that the President has convinced many Americans that Social Security is in crisis! Lowry's beloved private accounts would not even be discussed, had the Bush administration not done a very thorough job promoting the idea that Social Security - which will function untouched, at full capacity, until 2053, and at 80% after that - is in danger of imminent collapse. They've tried promoting this idea before, but have been far more successful this time.
Am I positive that Social Security should remain untouched and unchanged? No. But I know two things: this proposed tampering will only exacerbate any problems; and I do not trust the Bush administration to fix them.
Here is the letter I actually sent:
I read with amusement Rich Lowry's editorial entitled "President Should Focus on Private Accounts, Not 'Crisis,'" which was published on Sunday, January 30. In it, Lowry urges the President to focus on Social Security reform, and private accounts, rather than any perceived "crisis" in Social Security.
Lowry fails, or is unwilling, to grasp a crucial fact: Social Security privatization is only being debated because the President has convinced many Americans that their Social Security Insurance is in crisis. When Lowry asks the President to focus on private accounts instead, he shows he doesn't understand the reason for the debate: his beloved private accounts would not even be a topic of discussion, had the Bush administration not done a very thorough job promoting the idea that Social Security - which will actually function untouched, at full capacity, until 2053, and at 80% after that - is in danger of imminent collapse.
To tamper with Social Security Insurance is to tamper with people's security; I am distrustful of an administration that has to invent crises push their agenda.