It's called "privatizing Social Security" - but that's not what it really is. A side effect of Bush's plan is the government takeover of the stock market.
Think about it. With two trillion dollars of buying and selling power the federal government - or the private parties who are doing the government's investing - become, by a factor of 100, the biggest single investor in the world. And I doubt that anyone will ever make a stock decision without wondering what move the government is going to make.
Besides - who is going to enforce laws and ethical standards against the government? The government? The possibilities for insider trading are endless. And how do you feel about the idea that the single biggest owner of "free enterprise" is the government? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Because the market goes up over time doesn't mean all investors make money. There are winners and there are losers. There is nothing out there that will ensure that the government doesn't lose it all. The market is a gamble and if you don't understand that - you don't understand the market.
Bush proposes that we are going to borrow two trillion dollars to gamble in a market that will be completely changed by this new super investor. And we are going to borrow that money from Muslin Saudi oil barons - some of whom are members of the family of Osama bin Laden - and the rest is going to be borrowed from the Communist Chinese.
This merger through the market of the government and private industry is like an elephant merging with a fly. The government is going to own or at least control the purchasing of huge amounts of private sector stock and become significant owners of many large free enterprise organization. Will the government end up picking members of the board of directors - or influence who is picked, perhaps even innocently? After all - companies are going to want to attract Uncle Sam as an investor and structure their organization in a way that the government likes. It make me wonder how these corporations will change once Uncle Sam becomes the company's biggest share holder.
And the insider trading ... what will that be like. If the FDA decides not to approve a new drug - will the FDA tip off the Social Security Fund? Or - will they keep the secret and let the government lose billions of dollars of our retirement money?
The stock market creates competition, and some people win and some people lose. In this case it pits the government against all other private investors and someone is going to win and someone is going to lose, and guess who has the advantage?
And let's suppose the government does well in the market and makes a big profit on our social security money. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Not necessarily. It might mean that investor lost a lot of money and the same old people who benefit from social security would lose their private investment to make up for it. Government wins - private industry loses - hardly sound like free enterprise to me.
But what if the Government loses? Then you have private investors getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers. If the government blows it's wad on the market - the still have to pay back the Muslim terrorists and the Communists who loaned them the money in the first place. They will probably have to borrow the money from the investors who screwed them out of it.
To me the very definition of "free enterprise" means free from the government. After all - what else does the word "free" mean? If the government is your owner you are not free. You are in fact a slave. And the government server as owner, employer, and pickpocket all at once. They have your credit card and are running up the bill. We now have a $36,000 birth tax in this country. That's your share of the debt from the moment you are born. Thanks Bush!
What I can't understand is - where the hell are the conservatives? Doesn't this debt make your skin crawl? The government is everywhere and they are expanding and taking over. They are already in your churches and now they want to own the company where you work? Why the hell aren't you freaking out?
It's a never ending cycle and it reminds me of the song "Sixteen Tons" by Frankie Lane that ends in, " St Peter don't you call me I cause can't go: I owe my soul to the company store."
Blogger John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.org is exposing the truth about former White House "reporter" Jim Guckert, a.k.a. "John Gannon."
The basic question underlying this scandal is simple: How on earth did a $200/hour gay male prostitute get past post-9/11 White House security nearly every day for two years to get within spitball distance of George W. Bush?
Is the Secret Service completely incompetent - or does Guckert have "friends" in the highest places? Who specifically waved Guckert into the White House each day, starting when Guckert worked for the rightwing propaganda site GOPUSA.com?
And how "deep" were Guckert's White House connections? Did he actually see the secret CIA memo outing Valerie Plame? Did he actually know Bush was going to declare war against Iraq on TV 4 hours before anyone else knew? How did Guckert's boss Bobby Eberle get a rare and coveted interview with Karl Rove himself?
Finally, who was actually paying Guckert? Was he paid by the White House out of a propaganda slush fund? Was he paid by the GOP to spread lies about Democrats? Did Guckert's lies cost Tom Daschle his Senate seat?
This hot story was literally right under the noses of the White House press corps, who sat side-by-side with Guckert for two years. Yet none of them ever investigated Guckert - and many continue to defend him and criticize Aravosis for pursuing the truth.
Where will this expose lead? How can progressive bloggers help Aravosis get to the bottom of this scandal? How can we persuade the mainstream media to pursue its own investigations?