Remember “Private Investment Accounts”?

It was only four years ago that George W. Bush was traveling around the United States promoting the idea of partially privatizing Social Security. Yes, in April 2005, W showed us a government filing cabinet and proclaimed,

“The retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet. It’s time to strengthen and modernize Social Security for future generations with growing assets that you can control that you call your own — assets that the government can’t take away.”

What did he mean by that? On April 29, 2005, he gave more details of his vision:

“I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option, the opportunity if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers will have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.”

So the plan was that younger workers would take some of their Social Security fund deposit and put it instead into some personal financial account, like stocks or bonds, to prepare for their retirement. What would that mean when they retire? Their Social Security checks would be reduced, “because it is expected that some of their retirement income would come from these funds.”

I mention this because the first year for participation was supposed to be 2009, when workers born between 1950 and 1965 could open their private investment accounts. So, how is the stock market today? Don’t you wish you could bet your retirement on it?

Personally, I think we avoided having yet another W disaster. W neglected to mention that it was also possible, under his plan, that future retirees would receive a lower rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.

[By the way, John McCain liked W’s plan, too. He even had a “little straight talk” for the AARP about their opposition to it.] Alex Budarin

Parlor Wit

Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber

Saturday Night Live, Season 3: Episode 18

A woman brings her sick daughter to Theodoric the Barber for medical treatment. Theodoric tells the woman,

"You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach."

The daughter dies, and her mother calls Theodoric a charlatan. Theodoric considers this:

"Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method". Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance!...Naaaaaahhh!"


Next: Newt of Georgia, Medieval Prince

The President as Physician

Back when George W. Bush was President, it seemed to me that his Christian fundamentalist supporters wanted and expected him to act like a “Pastor-in-Chief,” someone who spoke for and enforced the country’s “traditional” religious standards.

I objected to that conception of the Presidency. First, why would anyone look to a politician for spiritual leadership? Second, I hate the stench of theocracy.

I didn’t think again about the metaphorical role of the President until I read the following comment concerning President Obama’s approach to governance:

“While acknowledging public outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid by a financial firm that just months earlier had turned to taxpayers for aid, the administration's economic advisers said President Barack Obama wouldn't ‘govern out of anger’."

What a beautiful expression of wisdom and maturity! What a difference from the Republican philosophy of government! Indeed, anger is not helpful in solving problems. It is a hindrance. A President should not govern on the basis of emotional reactions. A President should govern on the basis of knowledge, reasoning and counsel.

As I thought about it more, I realized that my ideal for the role of a democratic leader would be that of a “Physician-in-Chief.” Ideally, like a good doctor, a democratic leader would:
• use all currently available resources to assess a problem;
• consider the problem based on the latest knowledge and from a variety of perspectives;
• consult with peers and specialists regarding the problem and possible responses;
• evaluate the possible responses without ego, emotionalism, or presumption;
• apply responses on a case-by-case basis; and
• favor the least destructive response whenever possible.

I am happy to see that this is President Obama’s ideal, as well. I do not want my President, or my doctor, to take actions based on selective information-gathering, dogmatism, prejudice, or emotionalism. Only Republicans can look at Bush’s mess and fail to see the lesson.