.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States

Friday, April 22, 2005

Private Accounts Or Personal Accounts?

The piece in the LA Times by Jonathan Chait makes much ado about nothing. Who cares what the new accounts are called, really? If the GOP wants to call the accounts personal accounts, does it really matter that they are insisting on the terminology? Maybe Mr Chait is afraid of the type of media control that existed in the book 1984. The sky is falling, too.
As a matter of the use of words, personal accounts is actually more accurate than private accounts. The derivation of the word private means just that, private. That would mean hidden, or unknown by others. The personal accounts would still be administered by the government, which means they would be known, not unknown.
Oh, and Mr. Chait's statement that the president plans on privatizing the entire Social Security System is false. Or maybe he doesn't understand how words are placed in a certain order to make a cogent statement. Mr. Chait says:

"Aside from showing the degree to which reporters have internalized the GOP's admonishments, the rebuke was remarkable for two reasons. First, Pelosi never said that Bush advocated privatizing the entire Social Security program, only that he supported "privatization." Second, as a matter of fact, Bush has advocated privatizing the entire program. In 2000, he said, "It's going to take a while to transition to a system where personal savings accounts are the predominant part of the investment vehicle…. This is a step toward a completely different world, and an important step.""

The word predominant means mostly, not all.

I'll be back



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - This method will return an XML string containing a list of documents. - - - - - NRA ILA News XML Web Service. -