Call the question

So the question remains why am I so against the recent tax cut. There really are several good provisions in the bill. In fact, I might even have backed it, even with the tax cut for the rich, except for one provision. Part of the tax cut is a 2% cut in the employee portion of social security deduction.

Now conservatives have been fighting social security since its inception.   However, it really came under attack with Reagan's attempt at privatization. Since then the cry for privatization has not stopped. One of the strongest arguments in favor of privatization is that the cost of the program will be increasing so dramatically in the near future that the government can no longer afford it. So what does this tax cut do? It accelerates the time that the social security trust fund goes from a positive balance to a negative one. Long before that happens the cries for privatization will become louder and stronger. It is inevitable that the fund will soon reach a negative balance. At that time privatization becomes not only a possibility but a probability, and a strong one at that.

I have often said that I am a progressive that is against big government. Although this sounds like a contradiction, it really is not. I just believe that the role of government should be limited because "Power corrupts ......"

I worked for Nortel.  Nortel no longer exists. It filed for bankruptcy and was dissolved because of the actions of the senior financial and operational leadership, many of whom are in jail today. My 401(k) was decimated because of those criminals. However, I did not work for them long enough to earn a pension. Many of my friends did. Now, they no longer have their 401(k) nor their pension. I do not have to discuss the recent bank failures, stock market crash, interest rate bubble, home value bubble, etc. etc. etc. Do you really think it is a good idea to have the retirement plans of the general population in the hands of the people that caused these crises.? Not only that, but how will a mother of two, earning $21,000 a year, going to be able to put enough money away to ensure a safe and moderately comfortable retirement? Privatization is great for those seven-figure earners with large trust funds. But that is not the majority of us.

So this tax plan is not a question of finances. It is a question of who we are as a country.  Because of this plan the inevitability of the privatization of social security is nearer to becoming a fact.   Is this what we want? Many may say that it is not the role of government to take money from the rich to give to the poor, ala Robin Hood. I agree.

However, in the past, before World War II, the interstate system, the advent of extended families, it was common for a family to have several generations living under one roof.   While we were a more rural, agrarian society, neighbors knew neighbors and the communities took care of their own. However, that is not the case today. With social security, we said as a nation, “we know we can no longer personally take care of our sick and elderly.  But, morally, we know that we have to do it.  AND WE WILL.”

When we said that, we passed a law that we would tax ourselves to pay for the elderly and the sick. I will not attempt to refute that there are those who take advantage of the system. We are still fairly intelligent and can come up with a solution to that problem. However, we can not come up with a solution that is better than “we all pitch in a little to take care of the old and infirm.”

So you now see why not only am I against the recent tax cut, but I am also ashamed of it.