Unconstitutional
Hmmm. So, a District Court Judge has ruled the Health Care law unconstitutional because the Government cannot force private citizens to buy anything from private companies.
The Republicans, of course, are dancing in the streets.
But, correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't this mean that the Republicans' pet project (privatizing Social Security) would also be unconstitutional. If you can't force people to buy health care, why should you be able to force them to buy social security?
Update:
I'm putting Kissweb's comment into the post:
The Republicans, of course, are dancing in the streets.
But, correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't this mean that the Republicans' pet project (privatizing Social Security) would also be unconstitutional. If you can't force people to buy health care, why should you be able to force them to buy social security?
Update:
I'm putting Kissweb's comment into the post:
Bingo. That's the endgame. First you get privatization, and then libertarians start agitating: "It's wrong (and unconstitutional) to force people to save for their retirement." So everything becomes a voluntary 401 K.They've never liked Social Security from the start. Now, probably, they've found a way to get rid of it altogether.
The fault line there is between the purist libertarians -- no compulsion -- and the financial people who benefit from being given management of the forced savings.
posted by walldon | 3:17 PM
2 Comments:
Bingo. That's the endgame. First you get privatization, and then libertarians start agitating: "It's wrong (and unconstitutional) to force people to save for their retirement." So everything becomes a voluntary 401 K.
The fault line there is between the purist libertarians -- no compulsion -- and the financial people who benefit from being given management of the forced savings.
And consider these dynamics. When it's time to raise the Social Security tax back to where it should have been, and Democrats are cowering in fear of Fox News accusations that they never saw a tax they didn't like, a "bipartisan" coalition of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats steps forward with an impasse-breaking suggestion: yes, reinstate the ;payroll deduction, but soften the blow by giving the taxpayer something he or she "owns" and can control to the extent of choosing the form of investment. Suddenly, that looks attractive, especially when the amount saved is doubled by the employer. And there you go: that's privatization of 1/3 of Social Security when employers are required to match the employee contribution.
It will take a lot for real Democrats who believe in Social Security to resist that under the circumstances.
Post a Comment
<< Home