05 May 2005
Means and Ends - Part I
Query for Democrats: What were Roosevelt and the New Deal setting out to achieve with the advent of Social Security? While somewhat rhetorical in nature, this question aims to discuss the ends or purpose of Social Security. By examining the ends of Social Security, one can discern what we Americans, as a people, as a culture, value in our social fabric. The same holds true to any government sponsored program, but given the recent proposals by President Bush to reform the program we all know as Social Security, Freedom & Progress thinks it prudent to begin a specific analysis of this program, the Mother of All New Deal entitlement programs, Social Security.
Freedom & Progress must preface the following via a warning to its readers: Do not expect to see a vividly detailed proposal as to the reform of Social Security, or a strategy for curing the looming solvency problem. What Freedom & Progress examines herein, is the principle of Social Security Reform.
So, what was Roosevelt thinking? Freedom & Progress asserts that Social Security was meant to provide American Senior Citizens with a guaranty of basic security. If an American citizen worked her entire life and played by the rules, then in her old age, she should enjoy the ability to retire and live comfortably. And if some bout of bad luck should befall her, then the safety net known as Social Security would be there to ensure she does not fall into outright poverty.
Thus, the end of Social Security is to provide comfort for society's elders; (a group, incidentally, that as a moral principle, deserves comfort). The means chosen by the New Deal was a forced savings derived from payroll tax contributions into a trust. And for some time, the means of Social Security, met its ends.
Freedom & Progress maintains that presently, and into the future, the means of Social Security can no longer meet its ends. The next generations of Americans - perhaps the 35-and-under-crowd - no longer consider Social Security a guaranty. And even if the means still did meet the ends, and even if the next generations of Americans were counting on Social Security for their retirements, if a better, more efficient means became available to meet the same ends of Social Security, should we not implement these new means? Would it not be the progressive thing to do, to adopt new means to reach such noble ends? Is it not the conservative thing to do, to insulate and conserve the means we presently use? Freedom & Progress opines that should they become available, not only is implementing new means to reach the same ends the progressive thing to do, said implementation has the added virtue of being the right thing to do.
Memo to Democrats: New means for meeting Social Security's ends are available!
Capitalism works. Can anyone argue against such a basic proposition? If one invested $100 in the private market - say the Dow Jones - in 1945, despite the various ups and downs of market activity, the occasional recessions and index plummets, that $100 would be worth exponentially more today than it would if one placed the same $100 into a savings account or trust. A market rate of return is always more than the nominal interest returned in savings accounts.
Thus, when President Bush proposes to reform Social Security to a private-based system, the President suggests that American Senior Citizens receive a market rate of return on their life-long contributions. These contributions would then become investments.
Democrats and their friends on the Left are fond of accusing President Bush of duplicity. It is often said that the President aims not to reform Social Security, but to replace it. To this, Freedom & Progress asks, So what? Replacing the current means of providing a safety net for our Seniors does not imply that the ends will also be replaced. Social Security reform simply signals that new means are available to meet the ends that the New Deal set out to achieve for American Seniors.
Freedom & Progress opines that these new, private, market-based means are ones based in capitalism, a concept our Nation was founded upon. Social Security based in capitalism will prove to be a better, more efficient way to provide American Seniors with the guaranty of basic security. Social Security based in the private market provides a safer net, as well as a greater ability for an American Senior to retire and live comfortably, and forever avoid a fall to poverty.
Freedom & Progress finds it difficult to understand how any American politician who refers to herself as progressive can disagree with Social Security reform in principle. Adopting new means to reach Social Security's ends, now that such new means are available, is not only the progressive thing to do, but also the right thing to do.
And it would do President Roosevelt and the New Deal proud.
Freedom & Progress must preface the following via a warning to its readers: Do not expect to see a vividly detailed proposal as to the reform of Social Security, or a strategy for curing the looming solvency problem. What Freedom & Progress examines herein, is the principle of Social Security Reform.
So, what was Roosevelt thinking? Freedom & Progress asserts that Social Security was meant to provide American Senior Citizens with a guaranty of basic security. If an American citizen worked her entire life and played by the rules, then in her old age, she should enjoy the ability to retire and live comfortably. And if some bout of bad luck should befall her, then the safety net known as Social Security would be there to ensure she does not fall into outright poverty.
Thus, the end of Social Security is to provide comfort for society's elders; (a group, incidentally, that as a moral principle, deserves comfort). The means chosen by the New Deal was a forced savings derived from payroll tax contributions into a trust. And for some time, the means of Social Security, met its ends.
Freedom & Progress maintains that presently, and into the future, the means of Social Security can no longer meet its ends. The next generations of Americans - perhaps the 35-and-under-crowd - no longer consider Social Security a guaranty. And even if the means still did meet the ends, and even if the next generations of Americans were counting on Social Security for their retirements, if a better, more efficient means became available to meet the same ends of Social Security, should we not implement these new means? Would it not be the progressive thing to do, to adopt new means to reach such noble ends? Is it not the conservative thing to do, to insulate and conserve the means we presently use? Freedom & Progress opines that should they become available, not only is implementing new means to reach the same ends the progressive thing to do, said implementation has the added virtue of being the right thing to do.
Memo to Democrats: New means for meeting Social Security's ends are available!
Capitalism works. Can anyone argue against such a basic proposition? If one invested $100 in the private market - say the Dow Jones - in 1945, despite the various ups and downs of market activity, the occasional recessions and index plummets, that $100 would be worth exponentially more today than it would if one placed the same $100 into a savings account or trust. A market rate of return is always more than the nominal interest returned in savings accounts.
Thus, when President Bush proposes to reform Social Security to a private-based system, the President suggests that American Senior Citizens receive a market rate of return on their life-long contributions. These contributions would then become investments.
Democrats and their friends on the Left are fond of accusing President Bush of duplicity. It is often said that the President aims not to reform Social Security, but to replace it. To this, Freedom & Progress asks, So what? Replacing the current means of providing a safety net for our Seniors does not imply that the ends will also be replaced. Social Security reform simply signals that new means are available to meet the ends that the New Deal set out to achieve for American Seniors.
Freedom & Progress opines that these new, private, market-based means are ones based in capitalism, a concept our Nation was founded upon. Social Security based in capitalism will prove to be a better, more efficient way to provide American Seniors with the guaranty of basic security. Social Security based in the private market provides a safer net, as well as a greater ability for an American Senior to retire and live comfortably, and forever avoid a fall to poverty.
Freedom & Progress finds it difficult to understand how any American politician who refers to herself as progressive can disagree with Social Security reform in principle. Adopting new means to reach Social Security's ends, now that such new means are available, is not only the progressive thing to do, but also the right thing to do.
And it would do President Roosevelt and the New Deal proud.
