|
|
                   |
Strengthen -- Don't Privatize -- Social Security
By Kathleen Jones
It didn’t take long for the Bush administration to use the post-September 11th patriotism to further their own, pre-9/11 agenda – an agenda that was faltering badly before our national attention became riveted by events across the country and around the world. With our attention focused on the “war on terrorism”, many issues screaming for closer examination are receiving only cursory attention. We are being asked to blindly accept, without question or complaint and under pain of being labeled “unpatriotic” and “un-American”, everything the current administration proposes, and this applies to domestic, non-terrorist related issues, too. But the simple truth is that when it comes to workers’ issues and rights, George W’s track record – both pre- and post-9/11 – is abysmal. When George W. Bush presented his 2002 budget to Congress, it raised many questions from both parties. The New York Times, in its editorial following the budget's introduction, wrote, “Mr. Bush is using the anti-terrorism campaign to disguise an ideological agenda that has nothing to do with domestic defense or battling terrorism abroad. The budget discontinues the tradition of making 10-year projections into the future, possibly because the administration does not want the American people to see where the road is heading.” (NY Times, February 5, 2002) And one of the hottest issues included in this budget is the treatment of Social Security. One of the most important and strongly supported of all Federal programs is, without a doubt, Social Security. Since its inception under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930’s, Social Security has provided much-needed benefits to countless Americans, from pensioners, to disabled workers, to children who lost parents. It is one program that has nearly universal support among America’s working class, regardless of political persuasion. Yet this program apparently runs contrary to current Republican ideology, as that party is doing it’s best to dismantle it under the guise of “privatization,“ using the budget to creatively break the bank, so to speak. “[Bush's] policies seemed intent on starving the federal government of money to save them so that they can be ‘fixed’ by privatizing them in ways that favor the well-to-do,” wrote the NY Times. Other major newspapers across the country, such as the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, and LA Times, have also questioned the Bush budget and its impact on Social Security. Proponents of privatization say that allowing workers to invest a portion of their income gives everyone the chance to “gain wealth.” Yet which families will most benefit from this? Certainly not the family whose income is barely enough to make house or rent payments, buy a car, buy groceries, and see that their children receive a good education. Where will these families find enough "seed money" to invest and gain this promised wealth? Even if based upon a percentage of their wages, the poor are still the ones with least to invest, and the most to lose. Who, then stands to gain the most from privatization? Big Business, investment and brokerage firms, Wall Street “whiz kids,” the Wealthy. Who stands to be hurt the most if there’s a long period of poor returns on private investments? Certainly not those who have large amounts of money to begin with, that’s for sure. It will be the poor, the common, the ordinary worker. If privatization goes through, what happens to those people who lose money through bad investments, recessions, or their company’s stock going belly-up? Do we just say to these people, too bad, so sad? The stock market and other private investments are NOT sure things. There have been good times, yes, but there have been ugly times, too. Ask the people who lost money in the post September 11th recession. Have they all been able to make up their losses yet? And if not, how long do they have to wait? It is all well and good for someone who is five or more years away from retirement to say they can wait it out, but what about retirees who are now depending upon those investments to provide their income? What about the employees at Owens-Corning who only a couple years ago lost so much when their company filed bankruptcy because of asbestos-related law suits, and their stock dropped to under fifty cents a share? What about the employees at Enron, lied to by their chief executives, losing everything while the CEO’s made millions at their expense? And those of you who work for SBC-Ameritech, have you taken a look at your own stock these days? These examples are not exceptions to the rule; they are part of the overall game. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either unrealistic, or a liar. The mid-term elections coming up are vitally important to working families and Social Security. If the Republican Party regains control of the Senate, the pro-privatization faction will once again assail Social Security. Social Security is just that – a form of security for workers who've spent years working and who, when they retire, want some guarantees that they will be able to enjoy that time. Too many things going on these days that are being cloaked under the all-encompassing guise of “patriotism.” Stand up and make your voices heard. Write or call your legislators today. Let them know where you stand on Social Security and other workers’ rights issues; let them know where you want them to stand. Let them know that you will make your voice heard at the polling places. Let them know YOU VOTE!
Home Page | Buying Guide | Committees | Contact Us | Editorials
|
