Battlepanda: Social Security v.s. Private Pensions


Always trying to figure things out with the minimum of bullshit and the maximum of belligerence.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Social Security v.s. Private Pensions

As the post below explained, the private pension situation is a total SNAFU. It's dragging down our companies AND sucking up taxpayer dollars. Bruce Webb makes the great point that this state of chaos makes a powerful contrast between the 'market' solution and the government solution to our retirement problem (scroll down for his comment when you click through to the post).
The Right has established a series of equivalences: Social Security = Socialism, Social Security = Failure, Left Liberalism = Socialism and out of the mix match imagine that they have proven the case "Social Security proves that Left Liberalists are Socialist failures" and so frees them to go have a round of drinks and pound themselves on the chest.

If we can just knock 'Social Security = Failure' out of the mix the entire narrative comes crashing to the ground. 'Social Security failure' is the poster child for the whole "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" movement. Without Social Security failure they pretty much got nothing. And as regular posters here know, in reality they really do have nothing when it comes to this topic.

The counter narrative "Social Security is fully funded going forward, while company managed pension funds are defaulting left and right. Who do you want to trust with your retirement" if effectively delivered would be tremendously powerful, if only because it comes out of literally Left field and smacks the Right in a place they don't even believe they needed defending. "FDR was right, Ayn Rand was wrong, and the Cato Institute just wasted the last 24 years". The Right will react will baffled fury, they had this one in the bag, 'how dare they destroy our carefully constructed narrative proving FDR was a fool!'