"Ownership Society" is code language for "We just made it even more legal and convenient for your employer to raid your pension plan, and we’re not bailing you out. In stead we’re bailing *them* out because they overspent, and despite raiding your pension, they’re still going under."
The commenter, one Josh Jasper, doesn't seem to pay any attention at all to the central premise of SocSec Reform, that "pension plans" inevitably become extra revenue streams, overspent and underfunded. Under privatization, your employer can't raid your pension plan, because there is no pension plan. Does anyone worry about getting their 401k's raided? Of course not, because the money's in an account in your name, and your employer has no rights to it, even though your employer contributes to it.
However, I do think that Glastris' critique (quoted in Austin's post) of the President's pitch has a degree of valitidy. In essence, the administration failed to come up with a convincing catchphrase to overcome the public's natural reticence to changing their benefits. If the Pres had made the connection between private SocSec accounts and the 401k's people already invest in, a lot of the fear might have been abated. Touting SocSec as a "National 401k" would have made people realize that they were trading in something inefficient and collapsing with a plan similar to something they already know and trust.
We should take up the cudgel again, as soon as we can. It isn't like the Dems have a counter-proposal, other than "raise taxes and cut benefits".
For further information, see The Essayist #6.
No comments:
Post a Comment