LATimes columnist sees problems with Social Security “tax cut” … [Darleen Click]
… but still gets it wrong
But the worst aspect of the payroll tax holiday is that it erodes Social Security’s standing as a unique government program with its own revenue stream, a tax dedicated to its upkeep alone. Melding its own revenue with that of the federal government at large chips away at its standing, facilitating no one’s goals except those who want to see the edifice pulled down.
The more the program has to rely on general income tax revenue, the shakier becomes its claim to being a special case among government expenditures. When program-slashers sharpen their axes in Washington, the line has always been drawn at Social Security because it’s funded by a source distinct from the income tax.
If it becomes just another line item in the federal budget, what’s to save it being swept up in an across-the-board orgy of spending reductions? Hey, we’re taking a few billion out of defense, a few billion out of highway construction, a few billion out of benefits for the elderly and disabled — that’s fair, isn’t it?
What makes Michael Hiltzik think reducing SocSec to a fed budget line item by the current Obama/Democrat demogoguery is a bug rather than a feature?
And it is not, contrary to what Hiltzik writes, in a column riddled with error and assertions, about being able to “cut” SocSec willy-nilly.
The Leftist push to ever Bigger Government, who knows better how to run your life than you, is looking to create yet another welfare-dependent group. This time it is vacuuming up all workers who, by one reason or another, are looking to receiving SocSec upon retirement. Obama and Democrats are baldly reversing decades of touting SocSec as a pension plan that individuals contribute 15% of their income (what your employer puts in is money that would have gone into your wages/salary) over a lifetime of working, into just another welfare program they can both tinker with and make people feel guilty about. Most conscientious individuals are not looking for a free lunch; they only want to receive what they earned. The quickest way to shut down any SocSec critics is for Leftists to shout “HYPOCRITE!” against critics who are (or who have family members) receiving SocSec.
Independent citizens are a threat to statists so compromising individual worth and demeaning individual success (no one is really responsible for their success alone! We Own You!) is paramount.
Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with. (‘Atlas Shrugged’ 1957)
holiday, obama, payroll tax, social security