Letter to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
To the Editor,
David M. Shribman, executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, characterizes the debate over privatizing Social Security as: “two parties: one party that is more comfortable with market solutions to social problems, and another that is more comfortable with government stewardship of social programs. Or, put another way, a clash for the ages between two competing notions: personal responsibility and public responsibility.”
Sounds familiar, but it’s inaccurate.
Social Security was born of the Great Depression which, in turn, was born of the Market (remember the Crash!). Back then the “comfortable” were comfortable with letting the Market “solve” the social problems the Market had caused. Eventually, everything would be made right; if people had to sell apples on the street, that was fine with them; it was the price “we” had to pay.
Fortunately, those who cared about the large number of souls in need prevailed. Unfortunately, the few who were “more comfortable with market solutions to social problems” have been working overtime ever since to turn back the clock, and they think their time has come at last.
So, the debate is not as Mr. Shribman describes it, but rather a debate between those who would improve their own already adequate comfort at the expense of the depressed and those who would help people in need; between those who want the distressed to raise themselves by their own bootstraps but only sell them boots with no straps and those willing to offer a helping hand; between those who benefit from a system that punishes others and then blames their discomfort on the victim’s “personal responsibility” and those who recognize the need to help victims of an unjust distribution of wealth.
What’s to debate between a selfish lie and the truth?
David M. Shribman, executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, characterizes the debate over privatizing Social Security as: “two parties: one party that is more comfortable with market solutions to social problems, and another that is more comfortable with government stewardship of social programs. Or, put another way, a clash for the ages between two competing notions: personal responsibility and public responsibility.”
Sounds familiar, but it’s inaccurate.
Social Security was born of the Great Depression which, in turn, was born of the Market (remember the Crash!). Back then the “comfortable” were comfortable with letting the Market “solve” the social problems the Market had caused. Eventually, everything would be made right; if people had to sell apples on the street, that was fine with them; it was the price “we” had to pay.
Fortunately, those who cared about the large number of souls in need prevailed. Unfortunately, the few who were “more comfortable with market solutions to social problems” have been working overtime ever since to turn back the clock, and they think their time has come at last.
So, the debate is not as Mr. Shribman describes it, but rather a debate between those who would improve their own already adequate comfort at the expense of the depressed and those who would help people in need; between those who want the distressed to raise themselves by their own bootstraps but only sell them boots with no straps and those willing to offer a helping hand; between those who benefit from a system that punishes others and then blames their discomfort on the victim’s “personal responsibility” and those who recognize the need to help victims of an unjust distribution of wealth.
What’s to debate between a selfish lie and the truth?
1 Comments:
Tom, this is a fantastic letter. Even though I'm not personally eligible for Social Security, I think it would be disastrous to privatize it. Only the rich will benefit through their investments. The business page of the Dispatch today spoke to the tremendous fees financial consultants are charging. They can't wait to get their hands on Social Security dollars. Keep up the good work! Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home