ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, March 07, 2005

Never work with Kids

What's that showbusiness rule? Never work with kids or animals, because they'll steal the show? Well, The Perky One should've followed that age old advice when inviting this 9 Year Old on to discuss Social Security reform. I'm sure when she read that she was going to interview this kid, she thought, "Hmmmm.... what approach do I take to cut this kids throat [politically]? Too harsh and I'll look like the wicked witch of the west.... Maybe I could just dismiss him as a kid and tell him to go watch Power Rangers. Or remind everyone that this kid likes Mac & Cheese."


I have a feeling that this kid's IQ is several points higher than Katie's...

Couric soon arrived at Social Security: "Tell me why you agreed to stump for Social Security for President Bush."

Noah McCullough: "Because I know that it's a major problem that has to be fixed. And I don't want to have to deal with it my first day in office."

Couric countered: "On the other hand, President Bush has admitted that private accounts really won't solve all the problems of Social Security, that there perhaps need to be other things that need to be implemented to keep the system solvent."

Noah McCullough: I think it will be revived and we can go from there. Bush plan "kind of like the medication to get it back."

Couric: "So down the road you think it will help the system become healthier?"

Noah McCullough: "Revive it..."
Anyway, like Katie, I looked for some commentary on Social Security from my 3 year old (as mentioned here) and it appears that the youth position on the matter is well defined (at least from this highly unscientific method). As my 3 year old said, the chances of S.S. being around (in its current form) when he retires is (and I quote) "poooooo POOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!"

Regardless, I'd like to comment on all this horsehockey about Personal Retirement Accounts not improving the solvency of the program. No, PRAs are unlikely to solve the Baby Boom demographic crisis, but only because PRAs weren't introduced 20 f-in years ago. The whole point of PRAs is that we won't ever have to deal with the problem of age-demographic disparities in the future because people will be saving for THEIR OWN retirement (instead of relying on current workers to pay for their country club bills). Once PRAs are introduced (and expanded to increase the benefit they provide), we won't have to have this conversation again. Which is probably the reason the Dems are so opposed to it: all of a sudden they'll lose one of their key mantras that they use every 2 years to get granny to the polls.

I just don't understand how the Democrats think they'll win by lying to the American people about the accumulative wealth of compound interest over time. However, as they've proven time and time again, the politics of the issue are more important than the results of the policy (or to put it simpler: what's perceived to be the best for the Democratic Party is more important than what's best for the American people.) (see School Vouchers, tort reform, etc, etc)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (1)
Brian said...

Hmmm... St? Do you know of a current retiree paying for their country club bills with their SocSec check?

Yep I know who your talking about.