‘Ownership Society’: You’re on Your Own

Re “Bush Says Private Accounts Are a Part of the Solution,” Feb. 5: Now it is clear that President Bush’s private investment accounts are not meant to save Social Security but to eventually end it. This is Republican social engineering to get Americans to be more individually responsible by shredding FDR’s social safety net, the birthright of all Americans. However, as a lifelong Democrat, I am not so angry at the Republicans as I am the leaders of my own party.

Where are the Democrats as the Republicans attempt to take us back to 1929, when the “ownership society” really meant everyone was on his own? Where is the Democratic outrage at the fear and falsehoods about Social Security that Bush is promoting?

Where is a Democrat plan to really save Social Security? Where is the Democratic outcry that the truly serious immediate crisis is that facing Medicare, not Social Security?

In my view, if the Democrats cannot stop the reactionary scheme to savage the core of the New Deal, they might as well pack up, turn out the lights and get a party application from Karl Rove.

Carlton S. Martz

Redlands

*

For 16 years, I have diverted as much money as possible to my 401(k) and other investments, recognizing that I could not rely on an employer-provided pension or the government to care for me in retirement.

For many in my age bracket, the idea of Social Security going broke before we retire is treated as fact. The term “ownership society” may be new, but the concepts it embodies have been reality for millions of Americans for years.

Consequently, I am far more financially astute than my parents, as I have had to take a more direct and hands-on approach to managing my retirement.

The plan outlined by Bush is fair and sensible, particularly the provision to pass any unused savings to my heirs.

I appreciate the opportunity to manage at least a small portion of my Social Security contributions, and I applaud the president’s courage on tackling this issue.

Tom Swennes

Anaheim

*

He failed miserably in private business, he has put us deep in debt by shifting hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars to corporate friends to wage a nonsensical war, and now Bush wants us to trust him to change Social Security. Does he think we have all lost our minds?

Bob Stroh

Fillmore

*

Most people have difficulty balancing their checkbook and are maxed out on credit cards. Bush wants these people to take charge of their own retirement savings. These savings are to be entrusted to a financial industry rife with favoritism and corruption, an industry to which Bush is indentured.

Thomas Rutkowski

San Francisco

*

I admire Bush for bringing the long-known problem of a failing Social Security plan into the spotlight. He is unlike previous politicians who chose to ignore the problem and let it be a problem for future administrations.

Although his plan may need polishing, it is definitely a move in the right direction.

The Democrats oppose the plan because they think it would result in widely varying individual outcomes, depending on an individual’s choice. Imagine that, an individual’s own choice could determine an outcome (capitalism). Compared with the Democrats’ version, in which the government would make the choices for the individual (socialism). Do the Democrats support personal choice only if it relates to abortion?

Tim Peck

Anaheim

*

We owe nothing to the Iraqis, yet Bush is hellbent on spending hundreds of millions per day in Iraq for the foreseeable future. We made solemn promises to our citizens, yet Bush stubbornly refuses to spend our hard-earned tax dollars to preserve Social Security. Our president’s priorities are diametrically opposed to the citizens he has sworn to represent.

Randy Horton

Oceanside