Social Security Reform: Democrats Emulate Mythological Echo
by Carol Turoff | View comments |
Print This Post
Democrats offer no innovative ideas to fix Social Security, rather, they repeat tired old talking points full of fear-mongering and cliches like the mythological Echo.
Echo, the beautiful and talented forest nymph of mythology, had but one failing: She talked incessantly. On occasion, she used her beguiling speech to deceive. This so outraged Juno, that she condemned Echo, saying: “You shall forfeit the use of that tongue with which you have cheated me, except for the one purpose of which you are so fond– reply.” She was given the last word with no power to speak first.
Democrats are often reminiscent of the ill-fated Echo. Al Gore brought repetitive speech to an art form during his failed presidential bid. He became unable to open his mouth without having the words, “risky scheme” tumble out. Now, the same phrase is repeated whenever Social Security reform is mentioned. Led by the usual suspects, ever so reliable in promoting the message of gloom: DNC Chairman, Howard Dean, representatives Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel along with senators Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Sen. Pork in a Sheet, Robert Byrd; they spew their daily talking points denouncing any measures to sustain Social Security. Delivered with repetitive precision they evoke recollections of the unfortunate Echo. Listening to their collective sound bites, it appears a funnel was placed in their heads and words poured in. The utterances are indistinguishable.
The Democratic National Committee resurrected the “risky scheme” terminology as the legislative battle on the reform measure was brewing. As President Bush traveled the nation to promote his message regarding privatizing a portion of Social Security, 60-second radio spots targeting an older demographic audience, regurgitate the “risky scheme” mantra. A modicum of deviation has been incorporated, when the scheme is called a plan; albeit, a “risky” plan. At the conclusion of the ads, listeners are urged to contact their congressional representatives to demand a “No!” vote.
Social Security as it is presently configured cannot be maintained. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying into the program to support each recipient. By 1996, there were only 3.3 such workers. Social Security trustees project that from 2020 to 2030 the aged population will triple that of the working population and there will be but 2.3 workers per recipient. At it’s inception in 1935, when average life expectancy was 61.7 years, the program only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. Survivor’s benefits were added in 1939, with accompanying benefits for the retiree’s spouse and children. Along the way, former spouses of more than 10 years who have not remarried, those claiming Attention Deficit Disorder, drug addicts unable to hold down a job and posthumously conceived children were among the growing number who qualified for the expanded benefits. In 1966, Medicare for payees and their beneficiaries was created. Since the original Social Security program was inaugurated, average life expectancy has increased by approximately twenty years. In fact, according to data supplied by the US Department of Health and Human Services, life expectancy at birth has increased by thirty years in the last century, resulting in increasing numbers of people receiving benefits longer than they were employed.
Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 provide the basis of new population projections of the Bureau of the Census. These figures point to an increase in life expectancy at birth by 2050 to 86 years for males and 92 years for females. Calculated from age 65, the figures are 25 years and 30 years, respectively. These projections detail considerable increases over the current figures of 72.5 and 15.5 for males, and 79.3 and 19.2 for females. Factoring in future longevity and fewer workers, how does this precarious system remain afloat?
Like the mythological Echo, Democrats offer no innovative ideas. They merely respond. Their strategy employs the tactics of fear-mongering, deception and repetition. Loaded words and phrases are the reliable cache of their arsenal. Aided by a decidedly left-leaning media, they portray Republicans as “right-wing conservative” or “religious fundamentalist” ideologues while the Democrats are characterized as reasonable and mainstream. Favored descriptive terms are “moderate” and “progressive.”
The incendiary metaphors are not randomly selected. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 34 percent of the national outlet journalists, editors, producers and executives identified themselves as “liberal,” contrasted to just seven percent who termed themselves “conservative.” That translates to five times the number of those who bring us the news who have a decidedly left-of-center slant. Blatant bias encroaches into their reporting with calculated exactness.
The devious political descendants of the hapless Echo, assisted by a resolute press, appear determined to ensure an even more uncertain future for Social Security.
feedback@intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Carol Turoff
