Another Clintonoid finds virtue in government dependence

Par for the course for liberals. Robert Reich, former wacked-out Labor Secretary for Bubba, recently wrote a point-counterpoint column on Social Security reform. I'm guessing you don't need a hint as to which side he takes.

Some of his quotes and implications give yet further insight into the mindset of liberals:

There should be no generational divide on Social Security. It's a good deal for everyone. I want our boys to be able to depend on Social Security when they retire, just as their grandparents and great-grandparents relied on it — and just as I'll depend on it in a few years.(emphasis added)

I don't believe Robert Reich is a tremendously wealthy man, but he's certainly not a poor one either. To claim that he will be "depending" on checks from Social Security to help sustain his retirement probably falls somewhere between a good-sized embellishment and a flat-out lie.

So why does Reich portray himself as someone who will be in need of Social Security even though he could probably get along just fine without it? One reason is to establish a sense of solidarity with readers ("we're all in this together") and another is to convince readers that dependence on Social Security is desirable ("it's a good deal for everyone").

Hat tip to the Real Clear Politics blog for the source.

No, I'm not bashing Social Security as a supplement for retirement. However, I get highly irritated at the notion that there is virtue on government dependence (welfare, Social Security as is, etc.). This notion is perpetuated by politicians (usually liberal) who want to permanently enslave the public into government dependence, so they can run campaign commercials portraying opponents as people who will take away "their" money...which was nothing more than fruits of labor confiscated from the producers to be given to the non-producers.

Like the old saying goes: "A politician who will rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."