So what were Cons saying about putting Social Security funds into the stock market during the Clinton years?
"If the government owned all the equities, we wouldn't really be much different than the old Soviet Union."
--Keven Hassett, American Enterprise Institute, Jan 21, 1999
Thank you, Mr. Hasset! You just gave us Dems the frame we need to throw Bush, and the Red-ink Republicans, the proverbial anchor for their Phase II, 60-day assault on the most successful US Government program in history.
Bush's privatization plan is Soviet-style communism. In his plan, the State becomes a powerful broker in the financial market, funneling vast amounts of tax-payer money to political allies. Sure you get to choose if you privatize or not, but if you go the privatization route, your choices end.
The scheme Bush has been floating would give tax-payers a "choice" between a handful of mutual funds. The problem is, you don't get to choose which companies are a part of Uncle Sam's mutual funds. Would companies lobby congress to show their worthiness to be in Uncle Sam's funds? Would election winners return favors to supporters by shifting the composition of Uncle Sam's funds?
Luckily, a man has already warned us of the dangers of Bush's Soviet-style privatization. With great insight and wisdom he told us:
Greenspan offered enthusiastic praise for Clinton's idea of devoting much of projected federal budget surpluses to Social Security but disparaged the prospect of investing some of those funds in the stock market. Political temptations, he said, probably would motivate certain types of investments over others, thus basing decisions on considerations other than the best rates of return. As a result, he said, the government would probably earn less on its equity investments than the White House predicts.
Thank you, Alan Greenspan, for showing us the light. If we "Sovietize" Social Security the Bush way our tax-dollars will be wasted rewarding political allies of the winning party, creating the largest, state-sponsored 527.
The bottom line is that privatization offers no choice, and will just become the next wasteland of Red-ink Republican pork-barrel spending, investing your golden years into only GOP supporting companies.
Why no crisis
Now that we have shown how Bush's plan is at it core is very anti-free market, we express clearly why we believe there is no crisis. We will thank Mr. Greenspan for this quote as well:
Beginning in the year 2012, the annual expected costs of social security are projected to exceed annual earmarked tax receipts, and the consequent deficits are projected to deplete the trust funds by the year 2029,"
-
Jan 6 1997
So in 1997, the trust fund was "empty" in 2029. But now its 2005, and the trust fund isn't going "empty" until 2042 (or 2052). Either way, over the past 8 years we have pushed the "empty" date back 13 (or 23) years. That's not a crisis, that's called PROGRESS.
If we keep this pace up, we have NOTHING to worry about, well, save the Red-ink Republican debt.
Check out this WaPo link to see dirty, hypocritcal GOP talk during the Clinton years.