Ownership Society: Send Bush a Book Today!

Since Bush has not submitted a detailed plan for reforming Social Security to Congress, one is left guessing his overall objectives.

Josh Marshall and others have identified it as, "phase out," at least as far as Social Security is concerned.

Why would a President want to phase out the most successful public insurance program in our history?

Even yesterday House Democrats released a report showing that after reviewing over 4,000 pages of Social Security Administration documents, it was clear that as Social Security's fiscal prognosis improved, the Bush administration's rhetoric got louder, pushing the dire necessity for phase out.

If you think the Bush administration is trying to trick you by distorting the facts, you're right. That's what they do.

It's sad, but it's not entirely their fault. Bush doesn't know any better. He's just a huckster in search of a snake oil. He's Willie Loman writ big. Besides, he's been brainwashed by people who are smarter and wealthier than he is.

Welcome to the Ownership Society! It seems to be a slick upgrade of a package of post-War Objectivist concepts. One of the main proponents of this neo-Bushism is David Boaz of the Cato Institute.

These guys (not a very gender-diversified group) have the reasoning and breadth of mind of precocious 9th graders. They are totally limited in the scope of their concept of society by what they have been able to experience as 20th century Americans.

They are intent on socially engineering changes in human behavior by attempting to impede cooperation among citizens and communities.

If you want to get a glimpse of the society Bush and his co-ownership idealogues have in mind, it's sort of a juxtaposition of before and after moments:

• Jamestown before and after The Powhatan Indian Attack of March 22, 1622;






• Richmond, VA before and after April 3, 1865;






• Saigon before and after April 30, 1965;






• Fallujah before and after December, 2004.

The idea that society is based on economics is a discredited Marxist notion of history. In fact, society is more like tribal groups united by geographic and cultural bonds. Language is probably the most important of these.

Without trust, based on a sense of shared history, values and destiny, no economic cooperation is going to be possible.

In the end, the "Ownership Society" is a concept advocated by those who are not very knowledgeable about history, who think they can amass wealth and privilege independently of the rest of society. This resurrection of a dead concept is the price we pay for the ignorance of our leaders.

Send Bush a history book, and hurry!.

As the return of social Darwinism. Some churchs do promote the idea as god's favor. If wealthy, god likes you. If poor, god hates you. The idea will never go away but our shared values, language, and customs makes us a society as well as economics, religion, etc. It has a basis on language, community, and football.

decrying married couples maintaining separate accounts--fact is, it's hard to find a conservative that doesn't see everything as a proper matter for hard elbows, profit maximization, risk and greater rewards and failure.

Me, I think that markets, competition and private property is good for about 99% of our lives. But not everything. SS is a worthy exception. Marriage is a good exception.

I think you are right in saying that the right wing free marketers are playing on class and ethnic and age divisions to prevent cooperation in anything. That pretty much leaves the stage open for a well funded group of ideologues. Such as now.

I made a joke about why Gannon didn't upset the anti gay conservatives: it is because Gannon took money, turning an evil gay experience into a sanctified money-making profit venture. Now, if Gannon had done the same for love, then he would be in trouble.