In the Feb. 1 editorial “Nightmare on Actuary Lane,” the Tribune rightly calls for calm and logic in the debate over Social Security. But the editors ignore their own plea when they fail to criticize the utter illogic of President Bush’s proposed remedy of partial privatization. Let us agree that at some point in the future (sooner or much later), the income from Social Security taxes will be insufficient to cover the obligations of the system to its participants.
How on Earth can it be considered a response to that impending problem to reduce, by way of diversion into private accounts, a large percentage of the income that the system takes in?
If borrowing to cover the resulting trillion-dollar shortfall in income is not absurd on its face, then it is equally responsible to postpone that borrowing until the system runs out of money.
It should have been perfectly clear to your editorial writers that the president’s plan would exacerbate, not solve, whatever actuarial problem the system has.
Why could the Tribune not state that simple deduction?
Why do you instead criticize the Democratic Party for decrying the president’s attempt to “dismantle” Social Security?
To privatize all or part of this government-sponsored retirement and disability system would represent a decisive move toward the president’s concept of an “ownership society” and away from the 70-year-old intergenerational social contract under which our society has prospered since the Great Depression.
Why do you think it dishonest for the Democrats to state the obvious, that a change from “we’re all in this together” to “you’re on your own” is itself extreme?
