George Bush is still trying to change social security into a program with private accounts rather than the current system of guaranteed benefits.
Joe Knollenberg supports privatizing Social Security.
Privatizing social security is just the first step towards the Radical Right's plan to eliminate Social Security altogether.
The Radical Right does not believe the Government should have any entitlement programs -- and Social Security is an entitlement program.
If the Republicans control Congress for 2 more years, they will change Social Security and, based on their current plan, likely force the program to become bankrupt in just a few years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Keep this site real active, we're taking this seat in '08. Knollenberg will make plenty of mistakes in the next 2 years and they have to be highlighted. We all know that the msm, the Detroit News in particular, will not do their jobs. Only a groundswell of the netroots will force the msm to face up to reporting it. Good luck and I'll help out as much as I can.
AARP said he supports privatizing social security. That is what their voter guide reported.
In fact, that is what Knollenberg himself was saying — even after Bush stopped using the term “privatizing”. Now Knollenberg supports “personal accounts”. Which is exactly the same thing. Apparently the RNC’s focus groups just thought “personal accounts” would be better for PR purposes.
Perhaps your real point is that Congressman Knollenberg doesn’t know what he is really advocating. Those who have designed the programs for “privatizing” social security (or creating “personal accounts” if you prefer) do have the goal of eliminating the program altogether. Look at the publications by the Cato Institute. They are one of the key players in the lobby to “privatize” social security. As early as 1983 they were advocating the elimination of social security but they recognized that politically it would be impossible to just cut out the program so they created this scheme for privatization. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2-11.pdf.
Your argument may be that he iis unaware of the basis of the President’s program to “overhaul Social Security”. That he is voting to make minor changes to the program.
But if he is, why is he supporting a position that will cost the program more money and cause it to go bankrupt faster than if they don’t implement the private accounts? (Check out this article for more detailed information: http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=325)
And, more importantly, don’t we deserve a Representative in Congress who knows the background of the bills he is voting on?
Post a Comment