Job Security

Today, as the Bush administration announces its planned PR blitz to bolster support for its radical Social Security reform agenda, some House Republicans are voicing concerns about the intended restructuring of the program, although it’s not for the reasons one might think:

"It's a no-win for people in the House," [Rep. Ray LaHood, a] moderate, 10-year House veteran from rural Illinois said recently. "We risk our political careers. We risk 30-second ads against you saying, `You voted to gut Social Security.'"

It’s not the multi-trillion dollar cost that worries LaHood. It’s not the determination of this administration to move forward with a plan that is less concerned with solving a real problem and more focused on ideological machinations. It’s not the gap in benefits that will beggar two generations of Social Security contributors, who could not possibly make up the difference between what they contributed and what they can afford to put into private accounts. It’s not any of the other myriad of problems with Bush’s plan.

It’s his career that he’s worried about.

I’m not naïve enough to be completely unaware of the balancing act required of the members of Congress. There is a precarious line upon which one hangs his or her hopes, both for successful legislation of the party’s agenda and for his or her own future. I understand that many members of Congress believe that it is important to secure their places, so that their ideals and the interests of their constituents may be realized.

But it seems as though fewer and fewer members of Congress are interested in maintaining that balance, and instead the emphasis has shifted solely onto job security. Idealism has been replaced with ideology, and self-interest has wholly swallowed the notion of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The people, and what’s best for the people, seem to matter little to many of the members of Congress. And how easy it must be for them to lose track of those who gave them their place. They work shorter hours and have more vacation time than the majority of working Americans. They are guaranteed health and retirement benefits. They cannot be fired without cause. And the current annual salary of rank-and-file Congress members is $158,100. It’s no wonder that holding on to the position is more attractive than actually being a visionary who might risk such sizable comforts.

But such opportunism comes at the expense of the people whom they are meant to represent. They fight not for equal rights, or fair working conditions, or a reasonable solution to the (much exaggerated) Social Security problem. They instead fight for their jobs, and we are left wondering why Mr. LaHood and his cohorts’ careers are so important to them, when they don’t seem a bit interested in doing them well.