Why “Social Security”?
Now that the GOP plans for Social Security are being clarified beyond privatization, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that this fight is more important than whether the public’s money starts getting pumped into Wall Street brokerage accounts. I caught a bit of the News Hour on SBS over the weekend, and the point was made that this program is named for its value: it’s “social” in that everyone is covered, rich and poor alike; and provides “security” for all without favoritism or discrimination. So what does Bush want to do? He wants to make it welfare. It sounds good to say that benefits would remain intact for the less well-off, but what’s really taking place is that Social Security would then be positioned as no different than any other welfare program, making it vulnerable to dissolution altogether down the line.

Right now, taxable earnings are capped at $90,000. Raising that limit makes immediate and long-term sense, but would hit Bush’s true constituency right in their most sensitive spot: the dollars that separate them from being middle class, which happens to be where the bulk of Social Security money will be spent over the next forty to fifty years. The top 1%, the ones benefiting most from Bush’s taxation policies, don’t want their money spent on anyone else but themselves, and while they can feel virtuous when it’s spent on the poor, they see no value in helping out the middle. Social Security isn’t just a feel-good program, however. It’s meant for everyone, because everyone, if only in theory, is vulnerable, and may someday need help. Let’s keep the emphasis where it belongs. Let’s keep society secure.