Social Security

Occasionally there is a good article on slate.com. I found one there today regarding the future of Social Security. I'll also say that I find some sad excuses for intelligence on this web magazine. In particular, some of their fiscal policy analysis is laughable. But back to Social Security. I always appreciate points of view that aren't completely politically motivated, such as the one expressed in this article. Steven Landsburg goes to the heart of the issue, which can be summed up by the statement, "... in the future (as in the present) there will be only a finite number of goods to go around, and in the future (unlike in the present) there will be a lot more old people clamoring for a share." What he is saying is that even if we fix the problem now, the elder population could decide they want a bigger share in 20 years, and if they have the political clout, guess what.

As Mr. Landsburg suggests, individual savings will be the real solution to this problem, and private accounts could be one way to force people to actually save money.

I recommend reading the article for some of the insights contained within. I would tend to think that any retirement money diverted away from the government and kept in private, visible accounts would be a huge step in the right direction. In addition, if our US markets can't sustain us in the future with investment returns, citizens could at least invest money in other countries who are not bogged down with stagnant euro-economies (see my previous post). I certainly hope that our government does not stifle capitalism in this country. I think there is still hope.

Let the Social Security debate continue.

A Vampire or a Victim?

I can't even begin to say how good this is from Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers. This is one of the most well-read, well-informed "conservative" writers in the world, and his Private Papers site is a must-read on my daily list. One of the most salient paragraphs struck me:

Remember the twisted logic of the global throng as well: Anyone who quit the CIA
was a genius in his renegade prognostication; anyone who stayed was a toady who
botched the war. Three- and four-star generals who went on television or ran for
office were principled dissidents who "told the truth"; officers in the field
who kept quiet and saved Afghanistan and Iraq were "muzzled" careerists.
Families of the 9/11 victims who publicly trashed George Bush offered the nation
"grassroots" cries of the heart; the far greater number who supported the war on
terror were perhaps "warped" by their grief.

This actually has deeper roots and parallels in the constructs of the Democratic party itself and its vision of government: Leftists in power typically are lauded by the press, the intelligentsia, and themselves for their "bold" and "creative" work in the area of social programs and entitlement. However, the reverse reveals a different facade, the leftist who enjoys being outside of the system, chiding the abusive and "Fascist" Republican government. However, beneath both masks is one visage, the government stoolie, whose steady push for increased power of the state lies beneath every single movement it engenders. Their opposition of the high-spending Republicans' programs differs only in scope, not in essense. Republican budget deficits are suddenly decried by free-spending Leftists who, if they were in power, would be increasing the deficits through different programs. They and their ilk are the classic two-faced Janus of Modern Government. The government stoolie and the radical, wrapped in one slick package, "trying to fight for the little guy" through unionization, government education, and federal assimilation of state's rights. Which mask will it wear tomorrow?

I'll even quote U2, as I am loathe to do, simply becuase the point is too apt:

Red lights, gray morning
You stumble out of a hole in the ground
A vampire or a victim
It depends on who's around