Monday, July 25, 2005

WASHINGTON TIMES GETS IT RIGHT ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

A great post over at the BLOG ALLIANCE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM (thanks, guys, I still support the cause) alerted me to a Washington Times op-ed piece about the Dems' hypocrisy on this issue. Some excerpts from the Times:

"Plain and simple, through the voluntary personal retirement accounts in the president's plan, low-wage workers will benefit greatly. In addition to their Social Security benefits upon retirement, because of the PRA's, they will have an additional nest egg of well over $100,000. Something that is impossible under the current, failing system."

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid knows this, as does House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. They, along with the rest of the Democratic leadership know that low-wage earners living from paycheck to paycheck will realize a dramatic increase in their savings with personal retirement accounts."

"The system is failing, the Democrats know it and, yet, they have been basically ordered by Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi, not to offer any solutions. This, in spite of the fact that by an overwhelming 70-22 margin, Americans think that those who oppose the president's plan have an obligation to put their own on the table. "

"To prove the obstructionist charge against Mr. Reid, the media need look no further back than 1999, when he said, 'Most of us have no problem taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting them into the private sector.'"

Well said!

9 comments:

Thomas said...

Thanks for checking out and leaving comments on my blog.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Lower case c- in conservative - genius

Chris said...

Thanks for the constructive critcism.

Don Myers said...

You're assuming that MacKinnon's figures are accurate, which is a huge leap of faith.

The Bush regime (and it's wholly-owned subsidary, The Washington Times) has a long and well-documented record of lying about Social Security, tax cuts, and...well, just about everything else.

Accepting those figures is clearly a "faith-based nitiative."

BobG said...

Good post, glad you're on the team. I am, by the way a former New Yorker, born in Manhattan and grew up in NYC. I'm glad we still have some conservative folks living there. Keep up the good work!

Chris said...

Thanks, Bob, I appreciate the support. As for Don's assertion that the Wa. Times is a subsidiary of the Bush administration, I can only guess at who owned it while Pres. Clinton was in office. I do recall calling CNN the "Clinton News Network" though, so I guess turnabout is fair play.

However, I don't need to rely on anyone else's facts about Social Security. I am educated enough to read my SS statement, and compare it to the returns on the safest of private investments.

Denying any positive outcome from a new policy is no substitute for an actual policy. Neither is it an excuse to do nothing in the face of an escalating problem.

Rosemary said...

I have a Conservative Degree in Conservative Accounting. Anyone with half a Conservative brain can tell that the Bush Conservative SS Plan is Conservatively better than any Liberal or Leftist idea that no one has seen because the Left do not have one! HAHAHA.

Now to be serious. Trust the government? Trust myself? Hmm. No competition! ME!

Toad734 said...

We should get ourselves some of that refoem.

Chris said...

Unfortunately, it took me until August 14th to see the typo in the title that you pointed out, TOAD.I do appreciate the constructive criticism, especially when delivered so sarcastically. It makes blogging worthwhile. While I feel a little stupid, I have seen the far worse examples out there, and I take solace in that.