At any cost, don't let'em off the plantation!

David Limbaugh makes a polemic point:

"Two major changes have occurred since those long-forgotten days when Democrats were identifying Social Security as a crisis that had to be fixed immediately: The problem has gotten worse, and Democrats have proven they weren't sincere in the first place."

Well, as polemics this might work but what if you are trying to make a serious point?

Everybody acknowledged the last time we patched up Social Security that the changes weren’t a permanent solution; it was only intended to keep Social Security creaking along for another few decades. The repairs were considered successful because they kicked the problem somewhere into the next century.

The Social Security fund’s balance improved after the last fix, for a while, just as we always expected it to. And now it is on the decline again, again completely anticipated.

So the first part of David Limbaugh’s assertion, that “the problem has gotten worse” is true to the extent that the fund’s balance has been declining since its apogee a few years ago.

Now on to Limbaugh’s second point. He asserts that the Democrats have bad motives: “Democrats have proven they weren't sincere in the first place [about fixing Social Security].” Is this fair?

Well I guess it depends on what you define as an acceptable Social Security fix. The Democrats oppose any fix—regardless of its efficacy—if it reduces the citizen’s reliance on government run (read Democrat run) programs.

President Bush’s proposed fix will phase account holders from a government-run wealth transfer program into private investment accounts. It will also, eventually, render Social Security irrelevant. Nobody in their right mind would chose the underperforming Social Security accounts once everybody gets used to the idea of private accounts. Especially after they get used to the idea of private accounts being a good—and much more profitable—risk over the long run.

In fact private accounts will become the new “third rail” of politics. Voters will eject any politician that talks-up doing away with the private accounts. Social Security will, in contrast, will be come quite huggable.

The Democrat’s idea of a fix is to layer yet another temporary patch and kick the problem into the future another few years. One might sense that this is less of an “idea” than a habit—unless you also understand that the Democrats need Social Security for its own sake.

Put another way, the Democrats are the ones who need Social Security—not the country. The country needs some structured system coerces its citizens into prudently saving for their retirement. The Democrats need a government-run (read Democrat run) program that detaches citizens from our economy and—the Democrats hope—retards any inclination toward self-reliance. The ideal outcome, for the Democrats, would be an enervated citizenry with a herd-like fear of leaving the Democratic plantation.

Private account will complete the transformation of America into an ownership society. An ownership society will make it impossibly awkward for Democrats to demagogue Wall Street when all of the voters have a stake in Wall Street’s success. An ownership society will also be a society where the average person is much wealthier and the government—except for having to establish an involuntary investment structure—will have little to do with it.

Put another way, it is the Democrats who will die if George Bush grasps the “third rail” of politics.

So was David Limbaugh’s second assertion unfair? Not if “fixing Social Security” means fixing our national retirement system. Yes if “fixing Social Security” means retaining our existing system at any cost.

postscript:

As I type these words I realized that I might be wrong: having a stake in America’s victory over Islamofascists never stopped the Democrats from demagoguing Iraq. Oh well, let them continue demagoguing Wall Street too; they will just be driving yet another wedge between themselves and Americans.