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

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Saving Soshsecurity, Redux

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH

With Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, it's a wonder that we're accomplishing anything in Washington. Just now watching Linc and Ben Nelson of Nebraska (that red of red-states) on Meet the Left Press with former Cuomo aide Tim Russert. Linc just said that Bush didn't have a mandate b/c there wasn't an overwhelming victory in 2004... it was close and came down to Ohio.

Well, Linc - if there hadn't been voter fraud in Wisconsin, perhaps it wouldn't have been as close electorally as it was (Bush lost WI by 10k votes, significantly less than the 118k that Kerry lost by in OH). Oh, and don't mention the highest voter turnout EVER or the fact that Bush won majority (over 50%, Linc), the first time since 1988 when pappy Bush cleaned Dukakis' clock.

***UPDATE***
W/ regard to Soshsecurity, Linc wouldn't answer Russerts question which included a statement from Cheney that Democrats would lose favor from younger workers... Linc mentioned the opposition from seniors in his district, who won't even be effected by the reform OR be around to see the benefits of them 30 years from now. yeah, that's a good demo to focus on...

Now, I suppose that Linc is a Republican in the bluest of blue states, so his spinal fortitude on the hard matters isn't expected to instill confidence in his side. And it's better that he's a republican than a dem, I s'pose.... But, I think we need to keep in mind that not only do we need to convince the Dems that their worldview may need to be adjusted, but we also need to persuade those Republicans who don't "get" the free-market message that continues to give the GOP its gains.

My previous ramblings on the subject are here , here, and here.

Now, the only way to fix soshsecurity for the future without PRAs is to increase taxes (through increase in the rate or the cap) or to reduce benefits (index to inflation instead of wages or raise the retirement age). The reason for the PRAs is so that we won't have to make these difficult decisions in the future. In addition to the mind-numbingly basic concept of compound interest/Time Value of Money, people will own the assets in their accounts, they'll be able to pass on to their heirs... resulting in an accumulation of wealth over the years.

Why do we have a retirement system based on the 30s/40s when the rest of the world is in the 21st century? It seems like in one regard, we're stuck in the past and the rest of the world is ahead of us, so the euros should take heart.


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler