Invasion of the Security Snatchers
If you think the push to "reform" Social Security is about financial problems, think again
 

March 1 2005
Counterbias.com
Steve Horowitz

It's distressingly puzzling, at first. Why is everyone suddenly latching onto the third rail of American politics with two wet hands?

For seven decades, Social Security was just there, quietly doing its job, which is more or less to keep humans eating "Chicken of the Sea" and cats eating "Seafood Medley."

Then comes the 2004 presidential campaign, and, seemingly out of nowhere, the pathological president insists that a crisis looms. It's only a ruse to take our minds off his scandalous national security screw-ups, we think. Just a diversion, so we don't notice how his tax cuts made the rich richer and left everyone else wondering what to do with 178 extra dollars—as extra trillions piled onto the national debt.

Yes, shortfalls in Social Security will have to be addressed. By 2027, as the president pointed out in the State of the Union, we'll need to somehow find $200 billion to ensure Social's solvency. $200 billion! That's what we seemingly fished out of petty cash to eliminate WMDs; fight al Qaeda; plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq. (No explanation yet as to why the same amount—less, actually, when you factor in inflation—is a crisis 22 years from now, but we do know that minor adjustments today in the amount of income subject to payroll tax would solve most problems quite efficiently.)

Those who've really been paying attention know that Republicans have been talking about eliminating Social Security since its inception. In recent times, Barry Goldwater made it a centerpiece of his 1964 presidential run, and was promptly buried by a landslide of common sense.

And yet, the dream of killing government's most successful program wouldn't die. Conservative propaganda tanks have been bandying about "privatization" plots since 1983. And finally, two decades later, their day in the sun arrives, with a president of weak intellect and a strong commitment to giving wealthy campaign donors their money's worth.

But the question remains: Why? What, exactly, are conservatives trying to accomplish?

Certainly, much of it has to do with a reluctance to contribute any personal funds in the name of the public good. The character-destroying, communist implications of minimal support for society's less fortunate are self-evident, and need not be addressed here, except to note that public subsidies of corporate interests—by denying government the power to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma, to cite a recent example—arouse no such ire.

So what, then? Why the mad rush to create private (sorry, "personal") accounts?

Fortunately for us, a reporter from London's Guardian directed that very question to two ardent advocates of taking the security out of Social Security.

"Bush has a real opportunity of creating a generation of Republican voters by creating a culture of owner-capitalists," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a free-market pressure group and prominent Bush ally. "There will be an increase from 50% to 90% of American [adults] holding stock. That's a huge increase in the proportion of shareholders who realize what's good for America is good for them."

That last part sounds familiar, doesn't it? Who ... wait ... Oh, okay—It was Charles E. Wilson, president of General Motors, who said, in 1955, "What's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa."

The "vice versa" is freighted with unpleasant implications, as what it really means is, "Stay off our backs, let us exploit America's workers and resources as we wish, and everything will be swell, because your corporate fathers know best."

Once again, it seems that America's conservatives long to drag the nation back to the halcyon days of the 1950s, when blacks knew their place, women baked their cookies, birth control was largely illegal and Big Business could rape and pillage at will.

The article continues with Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading Republican strategist, expressing the conservative dream even more succinctly:

"If 100% of Americans at age 18 knew they were going to retire with a savings account, it would change their attitude to regulating companies, it would change attitudes towards envy, and how they feel about rich people," he told the Guardian.

"The entire secular growth in the Republican vote can be explained by the growth of stock ownership. It changes what you read, what you watch, and what you think."

Huh. Turns out that restructuring Social Security has nothing to do with long-term solvency and everything to do with strengthening the Republican Party—by creating a new generation of Americans who finally, finally understand that anything Big Business does in pursuit of fatter profits should be okay with you. Because, now, you're an owner-capitalist! You won't read The Nation anymore, you'll read Forbes! You won't watch PBS, you'll watch CNBC! You won't think about the problems of poverty, or AIDS, or pre-emptive war—you'll think about the profit potential in poverty, AIDS and pre-emptive war! Congratulations, capitalist colleague! Now please get out of the way as we reverse a century's worth of progress in workers' rights (so long, child labor laws!), environmental protection (hello, Clear Skies Act!) and corporate regulation (welcome back, Enron!).

Now that you're one of the pod people, we know you won't mind.

---