Motivation is the Key

Understanding Democrats

by Heidi Parent
04/01/05

People never cease to amaze me. Good and bad, I never tire of reading stories of explorers who braved vast oceans or mountain climbers who overcame certain death. Perhaps more intriguing is why they do what they do. Some are motivated by fame or fortune. Others are motivated by the challenge. But all in some way were motivated and understanding that motivation helps explain their actions.

The same is true of most politicians. Understanding their motivation is the key to understanding their actions. For example, did they vote a certain way on a bill because it was the right thing to do or did they do it because it would help their chances for reelection? (As in, voting for the war but against the $87 billion to fund it.) So the first rule of thumb for all political junkies is never take a politician's words or actions at face value. Instead, always look down the road to see how he will benefit.

And that's what we must do now to try and understand the fight over Social Security.

Now it isn't my intention to list the intricate details of the different Social Security reform options. I'd rather explore the reasons behind the debate, specifically the reason behind the Democrats' opposition.

The President has yet to make an official reform proposal, but he has said that all options will be on the table. The one he touts most often, however, is voluntary personal investment accounts. (For a review of personal accounts, see the previous issue.)

Democrats, on the other hand, want nothing to do with personal accounts. In fact, they view them as such a threat that they have vowed to never allow them to become a reality. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has said, "President Bush should forget about privatizing Social Security. It will not happen." And Dick Durbin said Democrats would not even discuss the issue until "the President takes privatization off (the table)."

Hmm. They seem pretty serious about their opposition. But one wonders why? What is it about personal accounts that gets Democrats in such a lather?

Let's step back and look at their motivation to find our answer.

But first, in order to understand what currently happens to your social security taxes, maybe it's necessary to provide a little background. American taxpayers are required by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) to pay a portion of their earnings into Social Security. Now most Americans think the money deducted from their paychecks is set aside and used to pay their Social Security benefits when they retire. It isn't. The money is instead immediately used to fund payments to current Social Security recipients. But since we currently have more workers than recipients, Congress helps itself to the excess, taking the money and leaving an IOU in the Social Security trust fund (Al Gore's lock box). Now I'm not going to go into details about what these IOUs mean for the future of Social Security, but I wanted to review just what happens with your Social Security taxes in order to understand the motivation behind the Democrats' opposition.

And it's really not too hard to figure out. Allowing personal accounts would mean that each worker sends less to Washington, which means Congress would have less money to help themselves to. But more importantly, it means they will have less control over your life.

And that's why I don't really see this as a debate about Social Security. I mean it is, but it isn't. There's a bigger issue at stake here, and that's the issue of control. Who should control your money - you or Washington? The choice Democrats chose is clear by the lines they have drawn in the sand.

After all, isn't control central to everything they do? Isn't control the reason why they oppose tax cuts? Tax cuts not only mean less money for them to spend, tax cuts also mean less control. But when you get right down to it, their opposition is really akin to saying, "We're against Worker A keeping more of what he earns. We know better how to spend it, so we should control it instead." But it's your money, not theirs. You worked for it; you earned it. Shouldn't you have control over it?

And isn't control the reason why they oppose school choice? Allowing you to keep a portion of your taxes in order to allow you to choose the school for your child means you choose, not them. They lose control over your life and you gain it.

So you see, they aren't just standing in opposition to the specific type of personal account that the President has proposed, because as I've indicated, he has yet to propose one. No, as the above Reid and Durbin quotes illustrate, they are opposed to the idea of personal accounts of any kind, period. Which means, quite simply, they are opposed to the idea of you controlling even a small portion of your money. Keeping your money in their hands means they control it, which keeps you dependant on them.

So the next time you hear a Democrat claim to be looking out for you, step back and look at his motivation. Chances are he's looking out for himself.