< link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://fumare.us/" > < meta name="DC.identifier" content="http://fumare.blogspot.com" > <!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12407651\x26blogName\x3dFUMARE\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d6298351012122011485', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Law, culture, and Catholicism...up in smoke!

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Bush's private investment accounts for Social Security

As the Social Security debate comes to a head in the Senate, it's important to realize why the Democrats are so opposed to the idea of private investment accounts: investors vote republican. So says Richard Nadler of NRO, Ramesh Ponnuru of TCS and Geoff Colvin of PBS's Wall $treet Week. Predictably, Daniel Gross of Slate disagrees, citing some strong research. This article on the AP wire, linked by Drudge, speaks of how the Democrats want to focus on other savings plans, such as automatic enrollment in corporate 401(k)s and a private savings plan styled after the federal employees thrift savings plan. The Democrats, though, don't really have a proposal, and the article mentions how the Democrats are forced to come up with some alternative after derailing Bush's idea because their constituents want to know what the alternative is.

My experience is that the Haves tend not to want the government to take what they have, while the Have Nots tend to expect the government to give them what they don't have, even if it means taking it from the Haves. The poor tend to vote Democrat and the Democrats stand for more social benefits and more taxes. Republicans stand for less government and less taxes. It seems to follow, then, that the Haves, or investors, would vote republican. Of course, this syllogism doesn't follow for Haves like Senator Kerry, but then again, socialist leaders are never truly socialist.