Is the proposed reform of Social Security a scam? If so, for what purpose? What's the real agenda?
This is the continuation of an idea that only started, very slowly, yesterday. It was prompted by the observation that when people who have more than enough money to buy the best, come out with something really shoddy, one has to ask why. What are they up to?
That's the question I've been asking myself about that really awful USANext ad featuring an Xed-out soldier in the field next to a picture of two men and a lily with a check. There just isn't any question in my mind that this ad would have had NO effect on its supposed target audience--old people who are already signed up with AARP to protect their social security (using small letters on purpose because that's the business AARP is in, making old people feel safe and cared for)--to make them switch their loyalties.
But, if we can be certain that this ad wouldn't work with the audience we assumed it to be for, what was the point? And the answer to that, I'm beginning to suspect, is to distract the people who actually saw it on the internet and keep them from paying attention to something else. If so, then the question is what. What are we supposed to be distracted from?
There are, of course, many things that the friends of Karl Rove, who put out the ad, would like us to ignore. But, at the moment, there's the demand by Congress that the White House and the Attorney General hand over information and begin a thorough investigation of how fake and real reporters have been used for propaganda. That might be important enough to want to distract the whole country by sending Bush out to shill for Wall Street.
On the other hand, it might not. What if this whole assault on Social Security is itself a scam to divert the country from something else? What if there's something else that needs fixing and needs a huge infusion of money? We do know what that is, don't we? It's the exploding budget deficit. But, you might ask, how is that going to be fixed by attacking Social Security?
Before I give you my hypothesis about what's really going on, let me just back up a bit. Howard Dean has rightly said that Republicans cannot be trusted with money. And we all agree, and that's a problem in itself. The problem with agreement is that it doesn't lead to further questioning. In this case, for example, it's kept us from asking," why can't Republicans be trusted with money?"
If we answer that it's because they are dishonest, that's probably true of some. But not all. However, what seems to be true of all Republicans (at least those that volunteer for government service) is that they just can't manage. Most of them have actually demonstrated that, by having already failed in business, before they take that step into the political arena.
They may blame their failure on high taxes, too many regulations, poor labor support, or whatever; but the real reason is that they just can't manage. They waste resources and money; they overspend their budgets; and then they go bankrupt and expect somebody to bail them out. It's a consistent pattern. If we have failed to recognize it on the national level, it's probably because there have also always been people to bail the Republicans out. They're called Democrats.
Think about it. How many times in the last half of the twentieth century did the Democrats have to bail out the financial mess created by Republicans? The number is not significant; what's really significant is that after they get bailed out, Republicans inevitably turn around and blame Democrats for raising taxes!!!!!
And, you know what, they're about to do it again. But now, because they're in charge of both houses of Congress, it's going to be a little harder. It's going to take a fancy trick to get more money flowing into the Washington coffers, while maintaining that taxes have not been raised. Even more tricky to get the Democrats to go along and take the blame for it later.
So, that's my hypothesis. There's a trick under way and I suspect this is how it is supposed to work. First you go out and threaten to dismantle the Democrats' very favorite program, using the guise that there's a crisis that has to be fixed. Then, when the Democrats respond that there is no crisis (true) but there may be a little problem which is easy to fix by just raising the cap on how much income is taxed, you become reluctant and let them suggest they might even sponsor the legislation to do it. Finally, when the bill comes to the White House, the trickster in chief, still "reluctant," will sign. Because that's what he does, he signs every bill, even as he maintains that it's not what he really wanted. Which is true. What he wants is a sudden inflow of money, so we won't have to borrow any more from the Chinese, who might not want to lend it since he's not being nice to North Korea.
So, the real problem of the exploding budget deficit will, as before, be solved by taking the surplus out of the Social Security fund whose infusion of money won't actually be needed for ten, fifteen or forty years. Like the rest of the trust fund that's been "invested" in the military-industrial complex, the money being saved for our old age will be borrowed with a hope and a prayer (it's a faith-based administration, after all) that the economy will (someday) start growing fast enough to pay it all back with interest. And if that doesn't work, well it was the Democrats' idea, wasn't it?
What's to be done?
First, I need to back up a little bit more. Remember Grover Norquist, the one who wants a government small enough so he can drown it in the bath-tub (and it won't be able to tell him to wash it out when he's done)? He's also the fellow who keeps talking about "starving the beast." And, you know, that's what we need to do, especially if it's a beast that bites the hand that feeds it.
And again, when we agree on something, we tend not to ask any more questions. Like, who, in this instance, is the beast? Norquist, presumably, thinks the beast is America's working people. But we know that's not the case. We do know, by now, don't we that, as President Eisenhower so eloquently warned, the beast is the military-industrial complex. Not the military services, mind you, and certainly not the troops (though they have been starved as have the veterans), but the military-industrial complex. That's MIC, for short.
What about the MIC is it that makes it beastly? Well, for one thing, its appetite is never satisfied. It does bite the hand that feeds it and, worst of all, what comes out at the end is practically useless. You can't eat it, drink it, wear it, go anywhere in it, build anything with it, or, at least for the majority of us, even enjoy looking at it.
Actually, I think there's one exception. What the MIC produces for the Navy does serve as a relatively benign extension of our borders around the globe and, as in the case of the recent Tsunami, can provide necessary and useful services.
But most of the rest of the stuff that comes out of the MIC is practically useless. More than that, it requires a tremendous amount of dreadfully boring supervision and storage just to keep it from spewing forth death and destruction accidentally. And the shelf-life is short. If the stuff isn't used expeditiously, it has to be replaced, which is where the "biting the hand" comes in. If there is nothing to be protected against and no new resource to be captured, MIC products are a total waste.
Again, here I should in all fairness note a small exception. Munitions expended in foreign lands, especially when they don't hit their targets, represent a valuable infusion of refined metals, which the native population, if they are creative and clever enough, can transform into something useful after all. Remember all those shiny brass fixtures and candle sticks we imported from Thailand and Taiwan? Those were made out of the shells we left behind in Vietnam. This time around, American scrap is finding its way to Pakistan.
Anyway, that's my hypothesis--that the proposal to "reform" Social Security is simply a scam designed to generate a large infusion of cash into the federal treasury so the MIC beast can continue to be fed. So, if we've learned anything, then the solution now is to just keep repeating the truth, that there is no crisis in Social Security and every reason to starve the real beast, the ballooning MIC.
By the way, in addition to the fact that the promotional effort in support of the "official position" has been really bad, one sign that my hypothesis about the trick being played may be valid, is the failure to make any mention of the very real possibility that by raising the cap to insure that all income is equally taxed, the over-all rate for everyone, including the employer's share, could be reduced.
Why, if making the national pension system better and fairer is what they are after, would the perennial proponents of reducing taxes leave this stellar selling point out of their promotions? If, as has been admitted, the non-crisis is actually a problem that is going to show up in ten, fifteen, or forty years, there's no reason to increase the flow of money into the system immediately. Unless, of course, the money is what they're really after-- to keep feeding MIC.
Imagine! The proponents of tax cuts are missing an opportunity to cut almost everyone's taxes!!!
Posted by Hannah at March 5, 2005 08:12 AM