With the fate of social security in question and the number of
uninsured Americans on the rise, this election cycle has raised
questions about what the government should do to provide social
programs and health care.
President Bush and fiscal conservatives believe new solutions
are needed to solve these old problems. They state that Sen. John
Kerry’s approach will only expand the role of government and
limit choices individuals have over their money.
Kerry’s plan would increase government spending to cover
uninsured Americans. Though more people would be covered under his
plan, Kerry’s approach is more costly than the
president’s. Conservatives counter that increasing government
spending and programs will limit choices patients have over
selecting health care plans and doctors.
President Bush’s economic platform for re-election has
been the promotion of what has been coined an “Ownership
Society.” The president believes people should have more
control over their money. On the campaign trail, Bush states that
home ownership is at an all-time high.
The concept of ownership is part of Bush’s philosophy of a
free economic market. The president’s “Ownership
Society” has several components.
First, his plan would allow younger workers to put up to half of
their Social Security contributions into private personal
retirement accounts (PRAs). Proponents of the plan claim this would
increase ownership of stocks to between 80 and 90 percent.
Currently, about 50 percent of American households own stocks,
according to a 1999 Investment Company Institute study.
In addition, an “Ownership Society” would offer
health care savings accounts (HSAs), which would put patients back
in charge of selecting health coverage and physicians. HSAs are
tax-sheltered savings accounts reserved for medical expenses. They
are meant to replace traditional high-cost health insurance
policies. Supporters say patients will have more choice to select
doctors.
“Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) were created by the
Medicare bill signed by President Bush on Dec. 8, 2003, and are
designed to help individuals save for future qualified medical and
retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis,” according to
the U.S. Department of Treasury.
Finally, the platform includes making capital gains, dividend
and income tax rate cuts permanent.
Supporters say their platform is based upon the fact that people
should have more control and choice over their money instead of the
government dictating where it should be distributed.
“Individuals should be able to choose where their money
goes,” said Arthur Lechtholz-Zey, chairman of Liberty,
Objectivity, Greed, Individualism, Capitalism, a UCLA group
supporting the promotion of individual property rights.
“Government should be completely separate from the
economy,” added David Lazar, vice-chairman of the group.
Though the president sees his plan as the path to reform the tax
code, his critics disagree.
They believe PRAs and HSAs will only increase the tax burden on
middle- and lower-class Americans. Opponents see the plan as more
tax cuts for the rich, instead of helping those who rely on
government social programs.
Furthermore, they contend that taking money away from social
security’s trust fund will only lead to more deficits, at a
time when domestic spending has greatly increased and America is
spending money to protect the homeland and fight terrorism
abroad.
“(Bush) is ignoring the $1 trillion plus transition
costs,” said Scott Nenni, the Bruin Democrats issues
director.
“Largely, the “˜culture of ownership’ is a
slick buzzword devoid of real substance. It’s a great sound
bite, but nothing more,” he continued.
In the next few years, students will go to the workplace and
will have to deal with issues like health care and retirement.