Income test for benefits = kiss of death. Equal access = broad support.

[NAO]

Means testing for a program is a sure way to destroy public support for it.

Think about it: when there is a burglar in your home and you call the Police, do they ask you how much you make? If you make too much, do they tell you that you do not qualify for state-funded law enforcement services and that you must call a private firm and self-pay? Of course not. Everyone needs police protection and it is provided to everyone regardless of income, no questions asked.

Everyone strongly supports police and fire protection because everyone needs them and they are there for everyone. Really, they are "Social Law Enforcement" and "Social Fire Protection".

Why shouldn't Health Care and Social Security be the same way?

If you have a burglar in your home, the police come, no questions asked. But if you have a bacteria or a cancer in your body...Do you have insurance? If not, do you make little enough to qualify for state-funded services?

Means testing fuels resentment toward the poor for being 'freeloaders' and ends up destroying support for things we ALL need. Like health care. And social security.

I seriously wonder if *'s gibbering about "more benefits for the poorest" is not meant to make Social Security seem like a "handout to freeloaders" to fuel resentment at people who do not take "personal responsibility".

[swag]

1. I think he's trying to kill the bill while presenting himself as populist

You are right about means testing.

He is suiciding on his plan.

[damntexdem]

2. Well, stop wondering:

aiming something at the poor is ALWAYS meant to be divisive.

[BlueManDude]

3. Exactly - turn it into "welfare" and it dies.

[EVDebs]

4. Simply raise the cap on the payroll tax from $90K to $120K and no

private accounts needed. Call it a 'revenue enhancement' like Reagan did. Or come up with another catchy euphemism.

You already can start an IRA account or buy an annuity and no one is stopping you.

That is, unless what Bush told us about this being some kind of crisis in Social Security was a ....lie to begin with.

[NAO]

5. Keep the government from messing with my private accounts!

That's a battle cry that can properly frame the issue.

Social Security is, of course, there for everyone and everyone contributes.

But if I decide to supplement that with a private account or an IRA or T-bills, that is MINE, ALL MINE, don't let the government mess with it.

Keep Social Security and Personal Investing separate and distinct. Do not muddle and co-mingle the two.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. That is exactly why European countries made their health care systems

universal with no means testing. They knew that the minute the rich weren't entitled to national health care, they'd start trying to get rid of it.

The Europeans understand that subsidizing the health care of the rich (who after all, are paying taxes for it) is a small price to pay for guaranteeing access to health care for the average person.

The same is true of Social Security. Make the rich ineligible, and pretty soon all the "liberal medai" will be full of talking heads raving about "those lazy, imprudent deadbeats who didn't save enough for their old age."

[NAO]

7. Why is this not clear to Democratic policy makers?

I don't understand why they don't get this simple notion and use it to build broad support for all kinds of programs that could benefit everyone.

Education, Social Security, Health Care could be framed in the same terms as Police Protection and Fire Protection:

- something everyone needs

- something that it is right and necessary for the government to provide

- something that would be abhorrent to privatize

- something we all pay for (social) and we all are protected by (security)

[msongs]

8. excellent comments...can we get some elected dems to do this???

when hell freezes over?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm