(Btw, as always, Desert Beacon gets even wonkier with more facts on Social Security and Sharrontology's factless drivel.)
So now, Sharrontology Obtuse Angle claims she isn't really for abolishing Social Security... Even though she is. And the media are chattering away about why we're not seeing more "open dialogue on reforming Social Security". Sound familiar? It should. George Bush tried this exact same tactic in 2005, and the corporate media were cheerleading it on until the waves of protests all over the country killed the proposal...
Or did it? It seems Sharrontology wants to revive it. And like Bush in 2005, she's using the same ol' "It's going broke!!!!" scare tactics to goad us into letting her throw starving seniors onto the streets to "fend for themselves" like they should in a "free market".
So here's the problem. Obtuse Angle isn't giving us the full story. Social Security is NOT "going broke".
I know, I know. It's not as dramatic as the "Oh noezzz, Social Security is BROKE!!!!" storyline you hear in the corporate media and you see parroted by radical right GOoPers like Sharrontology. But let's face it, there's no real "CRISIS!!!!" here.
And looking at the long-term funding issues, there are simple solutions that can be used, such as changing the cap on the Social Security tax (currently no income over $97,000 per year is taxed), simply stopping the constant raids into the Social Security Trust Fund (to pay for things like the Bush Tax Cuts and the Iraq War), and rethinking our budget priorities (hint: our military budget is over three times the amount of our Social Security budget). Again, I know this isn't dramatic enough for the media to salivate over like the discredited "Social Security MUST be reformed (read privatized)!!!!" storyline. But hey, isn't it better to look at real solutions to the real problems rather than get all dramatic over nothing?
And in Sharrontology's case, her favored "solution" would cause far more problems if implemented. You know how she and her teabagger army whine and scream and complain about "bailouts", even if they're nonexistent? Well, how do you think state governments would cope if Social Security were privatized, millions of seniors didn't rack up the savings Sharrontology promised they would, and the State of Nevada was left holding the bag for the feds' failure in ruining Social Security? Guess what we'd need: A BAILOUT!! Nevada would need at least $3.4 billion to fix the privatization hot mess, and the overall federal bailout to states would cost at least $601 billion!
Talk about Sharrontology's folly! And this is just the start...
You really want her directing your future retirement?