Irony
|
|
According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
i·ro·ny n. pl. i·ro·nies
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
The National Education Association’s current position on Social Security could be listed in the dictionary as an example of irony.
The NEA is having its members send Congress a message opposing mandatory Social Security for public employees. They argue, and I quote:
Mandatory social security on top of [what I already pay into my state's retirement plan] would overburden my existing financial situation.
Mandatory coverage would weaken existing state and local retirement plans that often offer benefits superior to Social Security.
Mandatory coverage would also increase the tax burden on public sector employers, eventually leading to reductions in the number of new hires, limits on employee wage increases, reduced cost of living increases for retirees, and reductions in other benefits such as health care.
Stopping mandatory Social Security for public employees is only one of the NEA’s priorities. Would you like to guess what another one is?
Yes, that’s right. They want to stop any attempts to privatize Social Security.
So, I can only assume that the NEA believes there is a fundamental inequality of value between public employees and private employees.
They must believe the arguments against mandatory (public sector) Social Security in their email to Congress (above) AND they must also believe the following arguments for mandatory (private sector) Social Security:
1. Private sector employees who pay into other pension plans either won’t be financially overburdened by being forced to contribute to Social Security OR this is an acceptable burden.
2. Forcing private employees to participate in Social Security either wouldn’t or should disadvantage private retirement plans.
3. Forced private sector contributions to Social Security by either doesn’t or ought to lead to increases in the tax burden on private sector employers, resulting in reductions in the number of new hires, limits on employee wage increases, reduced cost of living increases for retirees, and reductions in other benefits - such as health care.
To all the comrades at the NEA — I think I have a new tag line for you. How about:
“What’s bad for the goose is good for the gander” or, perhaps, “Consistency is for the birds.”
Funny, the more i read of their policy statement, the less sense it seems to make. Maybe i just need to get some sleep…
Makes perfect sense to me. Their priority is their membership. So, they favor their members paying less and they favor everyone else paying more.
What’s right, what makes sense, what’s good for education….all that takes a back seat to their narrow focus on their own membership.
Liberals have neither logic nor morals, so this is perfectly in line with their nature.
I also had some problem understanding the post, but I also drove 10 hours last night, and I am working on 2 hours sleep.
But let posit something. Public employees should only have to contribute to their retirement plan, and not to Social Security, but Joe Private is not over burdened paying for SS and putting his own money in his own retirement account?
That’s fair.
If we made it fair, how would that work? If the government determined you put a certain amount each year toward your own or another retirement account, you wouldn’t have to pay any SS tax? Then who would contribute to SS? Just those too stupid to save any money for retirement. Won’t this ensure there is no money in SS?
Sign me up! Really. Let’s kill SS by making people more responsible for themselves!
Oh, wait. No the money comes from the rich. The NEA must want to remove the cap and overburden the rich, and those in the private sector–anybody but themselves. I got it.
We are talking about a Union that advocates a Pro-Choice platform… Which is like the UAW coming out against the combustible engine… or at least being for destroying the engine before it leave the plant