I've been mulling over in my mind why it's so important to the current administration (and conservatives in general) to reform (or abolish) social security. The obvious reason being that it's not a savings program (what you pay in isn't the only determining factor on what you eventually get out) and so has some quasi-socialistic tendencies (there is some wealth redistribution going on). After reading this entry over at Talking Points Memo, however, I think I have a new insight.
I suppose the main (secret?) reason for abolishing SS would be because it is a tax on corporations.
The general plan to 'fix' this goes something like this:
1. Run up huge deficits (combination of tax cuts and crazy spending).
2. Use the hype from 1 to make SS look insolvent (even though it's not).
3. Switch as much as possible of the employee contributions to SS to private accounts (make use of money/lobying power from Wall Street to help).
4. Phase out the employer portion of the SS money.
To me, this seems like a natural extension of the conservative's inherent distrust of free markets. (For one reason or another, conservatives feel that the market rewards that exist aren't sufficient and so must be supplemented by government/the people.)
... of course I'm probably not the first person to think of this.
Conservatism, at heart, is the belief that "things used to be better." For example, it once was (supposedly) that any American with pluck, gumption, and a good idea could be a millionaire.
If things used to be better, then something happened to make them worse. What happened? Well, either things are more difficult now (which is a Liberal/Intellectual answer) or American business is laboring under burdens not formerly imposed upon it. Clearly, the desired answer is the latter. Corporate taxes, SS payments, healthcare, etc. are just the most obvious candidate for the position of "impediment that must be removed to return us to the glory days of yore." That's my 2 cents, anyway.
I think the traditional language of the political spectrum is too limiting. While you are correct on your description of conservatism, it doesn't really explain the current 'conservative' positions on many issues. (Part of this difficulty has to do with the fact that we have a two party system, so we're limited in how we describe ideas).
Liberals also want to return things to the 'glory days of yore', they just have a different time period in mind. :-)
I'm not certain traditional language is too limited. I think we don't use traditional language. Personally, I miss the spectrum as taught in my high school Poli-Sci: Reactionary-Conservative-Liberal-Radical. It would alter how we think about current political debate to frame it as "Reactionary v. Conservative." Nicely makes the point that the choir isn't arguing which hymn to sing, just who has to sing harmony.
On the other hand, you make a good point about Liberal glory days. I'll have to ponder it. It doesn't fit with "my" spectrum very well. Probably a sign I need to change my model . . . :-)
I think we probably need to use another axis (ala: the wikipedia entry .... perhaps something like the Political compass.
I think everyone is forgetting one major point on the issue of SS reform: We don't need it as much any more. It was created to offer stability at a time when there was none, economically in the U.S. The Fed has done more than enough with the bending/creating of new tax laws for 401k programs and Roth IRAs and yada yada yada, that the average consumer stands to make a hell of a lot more money investing their money privately. Not only that, but the investment of what would have been federal dollars, now goes to the open market, promoting growth. The only problem that I see is that most folks just don't know how to do it, nor do they have the disipline. Now then, if that's the only argument that some people have for maintaining the current system, why I am being penalized by being forced to send my investment capital, (over time being in the range of tens of thousands of dollars,) to a federal savings program, when I could be doing a lot more with it privately? Other people's ignorance is no reason for me to suffer financially. The system needs to be reformed. That's my take.
By the way, I'm feeling better. I've been really sick for the past week.
First of all, Social Security isn't a savings program (it's more like a government sanctioned pyramid scheme) and therefore it doesn't actually make sense to think of it that way.
Second of all, since Social Security benefits are linked to wages rather than inflation, even if you think of it as an investment, it compares very favorably (you _might_ be able to make more on the open market, but you can't make as much with as little risk -- the full faith and credit of the US is behind Social Security).
Third, Social Security still plays an important role in that the benefit is not tied to the market. A large market downturn (think about the tech. bubble bursting recently) doesn't decrease the benefit. This acts as a cushion for people who are going to retire or have retired when the market decides to take a shit on their savings ;-)
Fourth, since Social Security does some limited amount of wealth distribution, it provides some additional social benefits (helping to keep the most vulnerable people clothed/fed helps you directly).
Fifth, any privatization scheme ends up lowering the amount of benefit you get, while costing you more (the current Social Security administration is actually very efficient). The additional cost of private accounts will just put more money in broker's pockets.
Sixth, since even in a private account setup you won't have full control over your investment choices (and who really has time to individually investigate companies and purchase appropriate amounts of individual company stocks) this scheme amounts to government ownership of corporations.
And finally, the cornerstone of the push for reform is a lie (the lie being that Social Security is for sure going bankrupt in 2042).
I believe Americans think there is a "problem" with SS because Americans have wrongly come to think of SS as a government-sponsored retirement program. It's not.
SS is not for people who have 401(k)s, IRAs, Keogh-plans, or even savings accounts. We can take care of our own retirement. Other people can't. So, we can either give them money for it somehow (SS, begging, forced-employment, etc.) or they can take it from us, or they can die (with or without assistance from us).