I’m beginning to think that, despite his squeaky clean Eagle Scout appearance, Scott Walker is a creep.
I used to simply think that we had different viewpoints on government, but his proposal to fund the government with bonds rather than property taxes strikes me as completely irresponsible.
I think what’s happening is that his religious fervor about lowering taxes is finally running up against quality of life issues. This was inevitable; taxes aren’t inherently bad, despite the mantra we’ve been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan started attacking “the government” as the problem. (A fundamentally un-democratic — note the lower case D — viewpoint.)
Instead of simply saying, there are things we want from government (that is, our collective selves) and we have to pay for them, Walker is essentially saying “charge it,” pretending the problem will magically go way if we agree to pay interest on it later.
Of course, what he’s really saying is, “I’m planning to run for higher office; let someone else live with this.”
Problem is “someone” isn’t just his successor — it’s us.
Leaving aside the question of who benefits from the rather vaguely described private accounts notion, it seems pretty clear that the idea of putting private accounts in the stock market subjects them to risk. There will thus be winners and losers.
But the point of Social Security is essentially to eliminate or at least sharply reduce the number of people who are destitute in their old age. Additionally, there is the disability protection.
People who can afford to take risks in the stock market don’t need to have their Social Security put into private accounts; they have discretionary income for that.
Beyond that, I think it’s important to remember that the media coverage of this issue is essentially provided by people who have stock options and well-paying jobs. There are plenty of people who are going to be big losers in a privatization scheme, but they aren’t being represented in Congress or the media, because those folks don’t live in the same world.
Finally, while this may seem attractive in the short term, in the long term, any society with a moral compass is going to end up taking care of the losers, anyway.
So, let’s leave well enough alone, shall we?
And by the way, SOCIAL SECURITY ISN’T BROKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A) So, when President Bush says, “In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favour of life,” does he have Iraq in mind?
B) The case has for the last decade gone through 17 court sessions and Appellate Judicial review with 14 individual Judge advocated Rulings Honoring the Spouse’s Wish. We have the rule of law here, and the Republican Congress is playing politics, pandering to its religious right wing. The public already wants the right to death. Tom DeLay — and rightly so, in my opinion.
C) I don’t intend to carry water for Michael Schiavo, who may or may not be the kind of man I’d want my daughter to marry. But it’s problematic who makes the call on this one. Certainly, the Bible tells us that a man leaves his parents and becomes one with his wife (Gen. 2:28), which suggests to me that the husband (or wife) makes the call.
D) I don’t want to hear protests about playing God; without human internvention, Ms. Schiavo would have been dead years ago.