05/14/05
Let me start by saying that I'm a Libertarian. With that self-imposed description it is obvious that I believe in personal freedoms and a limited "federal" government. Thus when I read in the news last week "Schumer Plugs Savings Bill," I became incensed.
In this article, Charles Schumer, Democratic senator from New York, is co-sponsoring a bill with Rick Santorum, Republican senator from Pennsylvania. This bill creates a savings account for every child born starting with a $500. deposit that would be repaid when the recipient turns 30. Schumer claims that the interest earned would be tax free, and estimated the program would cost around $3.2 billion. He reasons that this bill would encourage Americans to save. Schumer is quoted as saying, "The greatest problem in our economy right now is people not saving."
In reality, the biggest problem in the economy is government over-regulation and uncontrolled spending of ill-gotten funds. So I guess it's appropriate that a Republican and a Democrat want to spend even more of our money and set up another savings program where individuals will have to rely on a bureaucrat's decision before accessing their "own" funds.
Never mind that there are no privileges written in the Constitution allowing the government to seize property and use it to start private savings accounts. That didn't stop Franklin Roosevelt from creating Social Security, which would be considered a pyramid scheme if created by private citizens. Schumer would rather start another savings program for the young instead of giving up a fraction of control over Social Security, the savings accounts for the old.
Why would Schumer believe that personal accounts in Social Security are wrong and want to join forces with a member from an opposing party to set up savings accounts for newborns? Could it be that these accounts, like Social Security, would be controlled by the government, and not placed in a bank or private financial institution? Throughout history when governments usurp their citizens' property rights, fraud, corruption, waste, turmoil and eventually genocide result.
I realize that it sounds extreme but consider these examples: Russia, with Joseph Stalin's purge, resulting in the death of millions; China and Mao Tse Dong's "Great Leap Forward," where millions starved to death; and Cambodia with Pol Pot's killing fields, where countless scores of people were eliminated, some by their own children. These examples shine a light on what can happen to a powerless individual at the hands of a socialist government. If you don't think that Charles Schumer believes in a socialist America I leave you with his quote describing the proposed bill: "If it helps wean people off privatization great, but I think it stands on its own."
Carl Ricketson
Trumansburg
