Eugene Coyle wrote: stuff deleted > What I think this "giving choice in personally investing money" > is really about is dividing the public. Those who make lucky > investments -- or shrewd ones -- will, like those who still have jobs, > feel that they have "earned" what they have, and those who don't make > investments that pay well have only themselves to blame. > This is divisive. I agree 100% with what Gene just said (and also with myself!) --- I would like to refer folks to a piece by Dick DuBoff in a recent issue of MR where he chastizes Radicals for forgetting the "anti-capitalist" kernal in the development of Social Security as "social insurance." Social security is not, from his perspective (which he argues ought to BE the radical perspective) a program to redistribute income --- it's a program of social solidarity. WE are ALL responsible for EACH OTHER --- we all work; we all are ENTITLED to a decent retirement BECAUSE we work --- we are ENTITLED to survivors insurance; we are ENTITLED to disability insurance; we are ENTITLED to health insurance [but we only get it once we're retired]. That is the social compact entailed in the social security act. Even something as trivial as TAXING "Rockefeller's social security pension" begins the process of dividing up the folks into those "really entitled" to social security and those who aren't. I've made that mistake myself -=-- arguing that there was nothing wrong with taxing SS benefits --- Check out DuBoff's piece for more details of the argument why social security must be preserved as a model of SOCIAL INSURANCE that needs to be expanded rather than have it become similar to all other income redistribution programs where the recipients should be scrutinized to see if they "really deserve/need it" so as to reduce the "burden" on the rest of us. Divide and conquer has worked lots of times ---- sometimes it doesn't... we have to figure out a way to combat the unbelievably successful dividing that's been done to the US population since the last high tide of solidarity, the 1930s and 40s! Hopefully, Mike Taxing social security benefits hurts all of > us because that is divisive. "Why shouldn't Rockefeller pay taxes on > his Social Security income?" we are asked. Because taking away part of > ours is the next step. Gene Coyle > -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
