Why do we need a Social Security plan?

I was listening to NPR's Morning Edition this morning with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) talking about coordinating a Democrat response to President Bush's Social Security plan.

Steve Inskeep kept pressing Emanuel on why Democrats won't reveal their "plan" for SS. Emanuel sounded evasive and never even actually answered the question. If this line of questioning and avoidance keeps up it will leave us open to the "They have no plan" memes.
The ads will flood the airwaves..."George *'s plan will take care of all retirees. As for the Democrats' plan...they have no plan."

We've got to stop this B.S. in its tracks because we know from bitter experience how much damage can be done with this particular meme.

Why should we even cop to requiring a plan? We don't need a plan!

I have no plans made to get my car fixed because it's running like a top. It doubtless wouldn't run so well if I let people steal parts from it at will, of course.

I'd need a plan then, but that plan would be geared to preventing the theft of my parts.

If we're going to claim to have a plan regarding SS, the only plan we should make is one for theft prevention, because if the politicians are forced to stop robbing the trust fund then like my car, Social Security runs like a top!

any changes will end the program.

Remember during the election the RW made fun of Kerry for having "plans". Now Bush won't even show the details of his "plan" but the Dem's apparently are now required to have a counter plan for every nutty idea George comes up with.

My bet is that Bush will steal Clinton's old idea for add on accounts once his plan is dead. He has a long history of flip flopping to ensure he can take credit for something.

While most oppose Bush's plan, the younger voters are interested. Democrats, not Bush, should get the credit if an add on plan for private investiments is ultimately passed.

I discussed this recently on Light Up the Darkness:

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=406

Funny, in the flamewar about Peak Oil yesterday, someone said no one will do anything about it if they think it won't happen for another 40 years, and I held my tongue, but the Social Security irony did strike me as funny.

Something does usually beat nothing, though. Perhaps an alternative should be put together.

Stop the looting and it's good indefinitely.
It ceases to be a trust fund if it's removed and spent regularly.
That is the only thing that needs fixing.

People's heads will explode if it is framed as Al Gore's lockbox, though.

apply to most anything the Repubs have done lately. "Leave well enough alone" is the corollary.

BTW, this whole SS and tax reform debate springs from the overconcentration of wealth in America. No one in MSM will discuss that in detail, but they appear to be mired in the neocon/supplyside claptrap of Free Market Ideology.

Check out The Myth of the Populist Stock Market by David Callahan
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0108-15.htm

"Stock-market gains have reflected the top-heavy ownership patterns. Between 1989 and 1997, the most recent year for which there is good data, 86 percent of stock market gains went to just the top 10 percent of households. Yet when the market tanked, it was often ordinary investors who felt the sharpest pain - pain that many will cope with well into retirement. According to a March survey by Greenwich Associates, major retirement pension plans lost $ 1 trillion from the beginning of 2000 through beginning of 2003"

and also see Warren Buffett's comments on corporate taxes:

Warren Buffett Urges Higher Corporate Taxes
by Jonathan Stempel
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-01.htm

"Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934. Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning"

The consolidation of wealth, and the refusal to tax it, is driving Bush's Base to coerce the MSM into doing its bidding. Rather than confront the issue of Wealth Consolidation head on, MSM presents us--the naive public--with the pensive prefabrications of Alan Greenspan's fully-baked concoctions: consumption taxes. Combined with the Trojan Horse of Social Security 'reform' (destruction by carve-outs), we have the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer on an assembly-line !

The system the rightwingnuts are prescribing is a trainwreck. Only 'true believers' promote it. Those who depend upon MSM for honest reporting will, like the Gannon/Guckert fiasco, bolt in favor of honesting in reporting.

Truthseekers are already aware of the plan. Like the beacon on the hill, DU and the rest of alternative media merely need to continue pointing out WHO benefits and WHY regarding the Bush agenda this last four years. They are searching, desparately, for a 'legacy' other than Worst President, Ever. Unfortunately, unless Democrats are 'picked off', as in the SOTU speech kiss to Lieberman, Dems can prevent this Bush 'legacy' of private accounts and consumption taxes...all for the further concentration of wealth.

Will they do it ?