>From my webpage, The Conservative Attack on Social Security
(http://home1.gte.net/rad/ss_inf/ss_inf_1.htm):
>Claim: Social Security is a liberal bureaucratic waste. We'd make much
>more money investing it in the stock market.
>Truth: It was CONSERVATIVES who originally prevented Social Security
>funds from being
>invested in the stock market. This was part of their long-term efforts
>to undermine Social Security.
[snip]
>"Conservatives largely prevailed on the matter of investments, but over
>the decades they lost the struggle to keep the middle class out of
>Social Security. By the late 1970s, most American families had a big
>stake in Social Security."
> Theda Skocpol, "Déjà views: Attacks on Social Security are as old
>as the program Itself." Mother Jones, Nov-Dec 1996
>(http://bsd.mojones.com/mother_jones/ND96/deja.html)
Thank you Paul. I did read that on your web site, but it didn't stick with me, sorry.
It clears up a minor mystery. About 1981, Public Interest had an article "proving" it is impossible to fund a pension for everybody. As I recall, it argued that the needs of a universal pension would exceed all available and foreseeable capital. It was a Malthusian- like argument. At the time I didn't know Public Interest was a right wing organ pretending to academic respectability. But the article stuck in my mind.
Now that I have it identified as Irving Krystol's, it puzzled me why the right today argues *for* pensions instead of Social Security, when 20 years ago it *proved* that pensions were undoable.
Another subject: Who is Theda Skocpol, and why should I take her views seriously? Please believe me, I don't mean this question in any hostile way. I want to know her credentials.
-- Homines id quod volunt credunt.