June 17, 2005
Safety Netizens
The May 16, 2005, cover story in Business Week contains this nugget of an article. It's extensive and thorough enough that comment on it is unnecessary.
Here is an excerpt from the Lee Walczak and Richard S. Dunham article, written with assistance from Mike McNamee and Ann Therese Palmer:
"I Want My Safety Net"
Why so many Americans aren't buying into Bush's Ownership Society
George Silli, a
66-year-old waiter from suburban Philadelphia, had a brush with
President Bush's Ownership Society, and it was an experience he'll not
soon forget. Silli's psyche and his wallet still bear the scorch marks
of the 2000 market meltdown. He saw the value of his mutual funds drop
by 60% and is convinced that opening Social Security to individual
investing would produce similar results on a massive scale. ``If people
are left to their own devices, we'll become top-heavy with poor
people,'' Silli says
A political
independent, Silli has learned enough about the market to be
pessimistic about a small fry's chances. He not only wants to leave
Social Security alone but also thinks politicians should expand
entitlements by mandating near-universal health insurance as a shield
against soaring medical bills.
Although Silli may not know it, he has plenty of company from all walks
of American life. He's part of a diverse group that includes the
pathologically risk-averse and those who are willing to take the
Ownership Society for a spin -- as long as it's equipped with air bags.
April Tsirigotis, a 30-year-old Republican and an information
technology executive from Lusby, Md., is a big fan of the President and
applauds his efforts to solve Social Security's fiscal woes. But, says
Tsirigotis, the divorced mother of a 7-year-old, ``I disagree with the
idea of giving people private accounts in which their annual returns
and their eventual benefits would be based on the stock market. It's
too risky. No one knows how much will be there in the end.''
While many members of Safety Net Nation have nothing against investing
and choice, they're worried that the country's web of public and
private social protections is fraying. They believe in more, not fewer,
safeguards against downward mobility in a world that's already pulsing
with economic uncertainty. Safety Netters include plenty of
card-carrying Republicans and independent swing voters, and the group
may represent a broader swath of America than the White House imagines.
A Sept. 2-5, 2004, survey by the Civil Society Institute, a Newton
Centre (Mass.) nonprofit group, found 67% of Americans think it's a
good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and
Britain do, with just 27% dissenting. Support for a government-directed
universal insurance system is strong, despite GOP warnings about
socialized medicine. Similarly, a Feb. 3-5 Washington Post/Kaiser
Family Foundation poll found that 47% of respondents believe the
government ought to guarantee a minimum standard of living for
retirees, vs. 35% who felt that was an individual's responsibility.
The most predictable members of Safety Net Nation are liberals who
favor activist government. The really crucial bloc, however, is made up
of those who backed Bush in 2004. They still approve of his overall job
performance but have soured on Wall Street and dislike the President's
approach to Social Security. This faction -- estimates range from 17%
to 22% of the electorate -- rejects both traditional liberalism and
conservative laissez-faire. In an era of rampant job insecurity, when
employer-provided pensions and health coverage can no longer be taken
for granted, they want a middle-class security blanket that gives them
protection as they build wealth.
For the rest of the article, go here.
top
RSS feed
|