From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 30 2005 - 05:22:16 BST
Khaled,
My views on SS Reform are close to MSH's, and that is one has to ask why the
wealthy, who don't need Social Security, are so anxious to move SS into the
private sector (where not only greater gain is possible for a few, but greater
risk and loss is probable for many).
In the end, it has to do not with helping the majority of the citizens (such as
me) "save". It has to do with risking the welfare of majority of citizens to
improve the wealth-accumulation of the already wealthy.
That SS is in need of reform is likely. That the majority will benefit from
privatization is unlikely. You are wise to remember Enron. You are also wise to
remember all the specifics. On the Enron tapes, part of the conversation is
described as such:
""Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush
win.
"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy."
That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on
sky-high energy prices.
"When this election comes Bush will f------g whack this s--t, man. He won't play
this price-cap b------t.""
And, lo and behold he did not, he has catered exclusively to corporate concerns.
**This** is the regard in which I (and possibly others on this list) am held,
and it appalls me. They key point here is really understanding whose interest
they hold, and asking, based on all their actions, if you really, honestly,
truly believe they are acting out of moral concern for the working-class,
average Americans.
What, I think, reeeallly gets my goat, is that they don't just come right out
and say what they mean. If Bush just said, "we don't believe in a safety net,
if people fall, so be it, that's the breaks", instead of making it sound like
he's all about helping the average family... it's that doublespeak that is most
frustrating.
You mention Medicare. Its the same thing (as you have indicated). It had nothing
whatsoever to do with helping the families of this country access healthcare.
It had everything to do with benefitting pharmaceutical and HMO corporate
interests, at the expense of your healthcare and your ability to afford
medication.
Bush's so-called "bankrupty" reform took away protections from the average
citizen who may sadly need to declare this, while at the same time providing
loopholes and clauses allowing the really wealthy to declare bankruptcy without
losing any of their wealth.
Pell grants and Lifelong Learning Credits have been slashed. While corporate tax
breaks have been upped. Public lands that we all enjoy are being targetted for
oil drilling (along with multi-billion tax breaks for doing so), in a move that
even oil insiders will not likely ever benefit the citizenry (since oil
production will not occur for over a decade, and in the meantime, other fuel
alternatives will make it unnecessary) while restrictions on pollution levels
are being returned to pre-1970's levels.
So when you ask yourself about Enron, and ask yourself if you really, honestly,
truly believe they are acting out of moral concern for the working-class,
average Americans... you are very wise to be doubtful. All the evidence says
"no".
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 30 2005 - 05:26:02 BST