I know this has already made the rounds through the blogosphere (and that this is a re-post from
my site), but I was in a semi-hiatus at the time this came out so I'm just now getting around to addressing it. In case you haven't read it yet, take a moment to read
this memo written by Karl Rove's deputy about strategies for Social Security "reform". Hidden in the memo is this much-quoted paragraph that says volumes about the true motivations of the SS "reformers" :
For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals.
The intent here should be obvious, but humor me while I parse this a bit...
Notice the choice of words there, especially the reference to "
the Social Security battle". By their own admission, this is part of "the" battle that Republicans have been fighting for a while now. Has "the" battle over Social Security always been about giving people the option of investing a small percentage of their payroll taxes into private accounts? If not, then why aren't the "reformers" being more honest about their true goals?
Even more telling is the fact that this is a battle that's they've wanted to win for at least "six decades", which begs this question : What was the nature of the Social Security battle sixty years ago? Is anyone dumb enough to think that FDR's political opponents were fighting to strengthen Social Security? Here's a view of the Social Security battle from one of FDR's earliest fireside chats :
I have pointed out to the Congress that we are seeking to find the way once more to well-known, long-established but to some degree forgotten ideals and values. We seek the security of the men, women and children of the Nation.
[. . .]
And, finally, the third principle is to use the agencies of government to assist in the establishment of means to provide sound and adequate protection against the vicissitudes of modern life -- in other words, social insurance.
Later in the year I hope to talk with you more fully about these plans. A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it " Fascism", sometimes "Communism", sometimes "Regimentation", sometimes "Socialism". But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.
Which takes us back to the ultimate goal of "reforming" Social Security as summed up by the memo : "to move away from dependency on government".
But in Roosevelt's own words, the whole point of Social Security is to "use the agencies of government" to provide a social safety net. If you take the strenght and stability of the American govenrment out of the equation, then you're undermining the very basis of the program itself. As many others have pointed out, the problem isn't that Social Security faces a possible shortfall, but that SS is a living example of a liberal government social program that works relatively well. That's why it's at the top of the Republican hit list.
Keep this in mind whenever you hear the word "reform" get thrown around. This isn't about fixing or strengthening anything. It's about destroying the foundations of Social Security because of a simpleminded aversion to government social programs. Like I said before, this isn't conservatism, it's anarchism.