In “The perils of personalization”, columnist Gil Smart points out “[Pat] Toomey appears to both love and hate Social Security. He has vowed to defend it ….. But he has also expressed hostility to the underlying premise that taxpayers, government, even society itself have an obligation to provide for the neediest of citizens, in this case the elderly.”
WATCHDOG: We tend to think of Social Security as being a benefit for the elderly at the expense of younger generations. We forget that before Social Security responsibility for support of parents fell squarely on their children, which meant they often had to suffer the crowding of elderly parents living with them. As much as Social Security brought independence and dignity to oldsters, it brought privacy and removed a huge responsibility for their children.
We all benefit from Social Security. And if mom and pop were to lose their retirement money in the stock market as Pat Toomey would allow, then their kids will have to make room for them. Anybody want that?
