« Minorities Want Social Security Reform. | WILLisms.com | The First Casualty of Mayor Bill White's "Safe Clear" Towing Program. »

Kerrey Tries Talking Sense To Kerry (And Other Democrats) On Social Security.

In this morning's Wall Street Journal, former Nebraska Senator and lifelong Democrat Bob Kerrey urges Democrats to stop being so lame on Social Security.

He writes:

"The late Pat Moynihan used to joke when I asked him why liberals were so reluctant to consider changing Social Security so that it guaranteed wealth as well as income: 'It's because they worry that wealth will turn Democrats into Republicans.'"

The diminution of FDR's legacy, the enhancement of GWB's--- this is unacceptable for liberals. Democrats know that individuals vested in the stock market, even just a little bit, tend to vote for pro-growth, free market policies. Republicans just happen to advocate these kinds of policies more often than Democrats.

When someone owns stock, he cheers, rather than feeling indifferent or bitter, when he sees green on CNBC.

Part of the rise of the Republican party in recent years is that more households own stock than ever before. Grover Norquist noted in September 2004 that,

"In 1980, only 20 percent of adults owned stocks in mutual funds, 40lks, IRAs and direct contribution pensions. Today, that number is over 60 percent and growing."

These individuals have a direct financial interest in how the market performs. Norquist also pointed to emperical polling research on the issue:

"...if you own $5000 in stock you are 18 percent less likely to be a Democrat and more likely to be a Republican. Every demographic group, including race, gender, age, and income, becomes more Republican with stock ownership."

Kerrey (remember, he's a prominent Democrat) contends,

"...liberals are wrong to fear that President Bush's proposal represents a threat to Social Security.

....

I hope they see that President Bush is giving them an opportunity to finally do something about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer."

Exactly! Social Security reform, as President Bush sees it, is not some big-money giveaway for the rich. On the contrary, the President's call for personal accounts in Social Security is an invitation to the world of capitalism for those currently left behind. Social Security reform, as WILLisms.com noted before, has an opportunity to help the poorest Americans earn and own a piece of the pie, then pass it on to future generations.

Bob Kerrey even deigns to use the "C" word, noting this specific point of crisis:

"...in eight years [emphasis added by WILLisms.com] the income from a 12.4% payroll tax will be insufficient to pay the old age, survivor and disability benefits owed at that time."

Eight years. That's soon. Doing nothing is not a viable option.

Kerry offers a few constructive alternatives for liberals to add to the discussion, but warns Democrats what will happen if "liberals merely shout 'hell no, we won't go.'"

"The best they can hope for with that strategy is to prevent reform from happening. They should feel no pride of accomplishment if that is the result."

Not only would Democrats feel no pride of accomplishment, blocking Social Security reform would unravel their party even further. Americans like reformers. They like pragmatists. They like Congress to fix problems before they become crises. Americans abhor obstructionists. They abandon parties with no positive agenda.

Will Democrats continue down the suicidal path of blocking Social Security reform? Honestly, they don't have many other options. The Democrats' pervasive ideology, socialism, increasingly discredited, is decaying. One could argue: if they don't fight for socialism, what is the point of having a party?

Dissent for the sake of dissent? One could make that argument. The liberal hemisphere of the blogosphere gets itself worked up into a tizzy when anyone suggests that there ought to be de facto curbs on filibusters and understood limits to dissent.

A minority party acting as "loyal opposition" to the majority party is good and entirely necessary, but not when the dissent becomes so wild and angry that it harms the good of the nation. Dissent is patriotic, but not for its own sake; Democrats persistently blocking the will of the majority can only lead to an eventual permanent supermajority for the GOP.

WILLisms.com offers this bit of constructive advice to Democrats:
Lose the Marxism. It's a loser. Stop thinking that socialism is the best thing for the poor. It's not. Get more Joe Liebermans and John Breauxs and Bob Kerreys. The more Democrats pander to the leftwing of the blogosphere, the further off the deep end they will go, the more foolish they will look to history.

And to the liberal bloggers:
Branding obstructionism and nihilistic anti-reform ideology as your patriotic duty is not going to cut it politically. The computer makes you anonymous, it makes you brave, but it does not make you good at politics. You may whip up the grassroots. You may raise a lot of money. But ultimately, your far left extremism only hurts Democrats who must pander to, and posture for, you.

In short, Democrats, listen to Bob Kerrey, or you will be sorry.

WILLisms.com will continue to follow the Social Security debate, so stay tuned.

Posted by Will Franklin · 1 February 2005 07:13 AM

Comments

Posted by: Drew at February 1, 2005 04:16 AM

Posted by: Drew at February 1, 2005 04:37 AM

Posted by: Drew at February 1, 2005 04:40 AM

Posted by: Will Franklin at February 1, 2005 12:15 PM