I wonder how familiar you are with the concept of the "Nanny State." In the view of many who are philosophically on the right, the "nanny state' threatens the basic rights of individual choice and it is equated with socialism. In the "nanny state" every problem that people have, from the proper allocation of health care, to owning guns, to wearing helmets when riding bicycles, to bullying in school, to whatever, can be solved by action of a central government.

"Nanny State" A derogatory term used to describe a political system in which people rely on state regulation to solve all their problems.

I raise this concept because of an interesting trend in attitudes towards state pensions. On December 14, 2004, the front page of the English newspaper, Daily Mail trumpeted "Pensions: We'll make you save." Apparently a government-commissioned report from the Employer Task Force stated there needed to be drastic action in order to save pension plans and that if employees and employers did not do a better job of creating effective pension schemes the government would have to step in with legislation.
At the same time in the United States the President was vowing to shake-up the federal pension fund through major reforms. According to a report from the BBC News, December 17, 2004, the President was proposing part-privatization of the state pension fund. According to Guardian columnist, Sidney Blumenthal, the latest campaign is to point to a growing crisis in the social security program in the United States and this crisis will be hammered home with a growing advertising campaign. The plan is to prepare people for an "assault on the social contract by blasting away at its cornerstone, social security, which disburses pensions to the elderly and payments to the disabled."
The President argues that if the system is not fixed now it will not benefit the nation's children and grandchildren. He is urging younger workers to begin using private accounts to ease stress on the traditional state-run system. However, according to

ARTA © 2005

social security activists in the U.S. the current system will issue full benefits without any changes until 2042. Only the slightest modifications would guarantee complete solvency beyond that into the indefinite future.

There is no question that those promoting free-market policies and increased privatization believe that more individuals should be responsible for their own future pensions and should have to rely on private investments for their retirement income. But to use scaremongering to achieve this end by promulgating that the pension fund is on the road to bankruptcy or that the expanding elderly population will place an undue expense on young people is reprehensible. However, the campaign is starting and you can expect to hear more and more about it in the future.

 

The human mind ... Please read this - you will understand the message. I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulacity uesdnatnrd waht I was radnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt thing is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can siltl raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tohghut slpeling was ipmorantt.