Bush Wants To Put YOU In Charge

by Mary Pitt

The theme of the Bush administrations is and has always been a platform of "individual responsibilty", of giving us back the "privilege" of choice, (that is unless we are women and desire to exercize the choice of whether to bear children). Let's look at all the areas in which he wants to return "power to the people" and translate them into the end result of his suggestions.

He wants to put YOU in charge of YOUR OWN health care. This is wonderful if you have an income above, say, $200,000 per year and a considerable amount of money in banks and investments. However, for most of us this would require that we "decide" whether we would prefer to pay the rent or to carry health insurance. With the deductibles and co-payments, we must then "decide" whether to seek medical care even if we are insured. Those who have not been able to afford the huge amounts to the insurance companies will have to "decide" whether to visit a doctor or clinic and, having decided that we must do so, must then "decide" whether we can purchase the ubiquitous prescriptions that are necessary for recovery. These decisions will be necessary once Bush and the Republicans have destroyed the "safety nets" that are now in place through Medicaid, Medicaid, and the various "welfare" programs.

The Bush agenda also includes putting YOU in charge of YOUR "investments". What he really means is that he will phase out Social Security by putting "a small portion" of the deductions from your payroll deductions into a fund from which you can invest for your own retirement. A little simple math will tell you how much money you will be "investing" on an annual basis and, based on the knowledge of the average American worker, how much you may expect to have for your retirement in place of the current Social Security which will, of course, also be nonexistent by the time your body is worn out and you must quit working. The other provisions of Social Security such as disabilty and survivors insurance is never mentioned in the rosy scenario that is painted for you by the Republican spin machine. If you should happen to die before reaching retirement or financial security, the "choices" wiil then be made by your survivors. You may rest assured that these decisions will be even more difficult in the absence of your pay check.

In addition to the blatant propaganda with which we are afflicted, there are the insults toward those who would be required to cope without these vital Federal safety nets, insults are heaped upon us by people like Arnold Swartzenegger, who refers to anyone who objects to this agenda as "girly-men" and "whiners". In addition, we are subjected to messages of gloom and doom from Alan Greenspan, a man who is old enough to earn any amount he can get without losing his Social Security benefits but is still sitting behind a desk and issuing "sermons from the mount" in support of the theft of your Social Security contributions to pay for the Bush deficit.

Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show", provided the most concise and best translation of the statements of "Gubernator" Swartzenegger as well as the entire Bush re-election platform with this statement, "F*** you, faggots! Suck it up and move on!"