BUT, HAVING SAID THAT, Chuck's positive suggestion is positively vicious, because *any proposal whatever* for "solving" the Social Security System contains, as a concealed premise, a fundamental LIE: that a problem exists to be solved.
The WSJ perceived (in an editorial I mentioned some time ago) that even *opening* the question of Social Security (as Clinton had) in fact placed the system on a slippery slope to privatization. As that infamous colonel put it in Vietnam, "We had to destroy the village to save it." The WSJ pretended that Clinton was *for* Social Security and wasn't aware that once opened it would be under his control -- but whatever Clinton is, he is NOT stupid. He would have *intended* for the question to get out of his control.
In so far as leftists can find any crack through which to express their own responses, they should demand "NO CHANGES TO SOCIAL SECURITY." And they should be aware as they make this claim that unless mass actions in the streets can be mobilized, their demand is utterly utopian -- but at least it would not actively carry on the program of Clinton-WSJ by admitting that there was a problem to be solved.
bautiste at uswest.net wrote:
> That's basically what he said too. Tell me, does nayone question that
> privatization is a "done deal"? The Albuquerque forum was just a way to
> figure out the details.
> Has anyone seen the recommendation that the FICA tax be raised 1.1% for
> both taxpayer and employer, and this would keep SS solvent until 2075. Are
> there any serious problems with that suggestion? Are the numbers on this
> tax hike hard enough to make this a serious proposal?
> chuck miller
> Tom Lehman wrote:
> > Dear Doug and the Left Business Observers,
> > Here is a little exchange from President Clinton's social security
> > privatization pep rally in New Mexico yesterday.
> > Clinton: I've been "ah", seriously "ah studyin", for the last couple
> > of years what we can do to "ah" save social security.
> > Question: Mr. President what percentage of Americans paying into
> > social security have incomes greater than $ 68,400 a year?
> > Clinton: " Ah, ah, ah, ah... can someone on the panel answer that
> > question".
> > Yeah sure, he's been seriously studying social security.
> > Sincerely,
> > Tom Lehman