Gema G. Hernández

President Bush has made things very clear to us for the next elections. We either chose to live in a country where individual rights are paramount or we continue to live in a country where individual rights are being lost on a day to day basis.

Since early in his presidency we have seen a conflict between what is being said to the public and what is being done. While the message used in his re election campaign has been to reduce the role of government and to advocate for a smaller government. The realities are different. Since President Bush took over, government is now interfering in our most personal decisions from when to die, to when to be born, from when not to retire to what we should do with our spare time. The message to reduce the role of government has been lost and the reality is a more intrusive government, a more dogmatic government. This is what is emerging right in front of our eyes. If we like the interference of government in our personal affairs, then President Bush is the right choice, and while we are choosing him, please don’t forget to dispose of your living will because the end of your life in the case of a vegetative stage will be determined by the court and not by you.

President Bush wants smaller government, and this campaign message has definitely been fulfilled. Unfortunately for us taxpayers the reduction in the government workforce and the devaluing of government workers are allowing companies like Halliburton to overbill the taxpayers for the work they do now for us. It also has allowed some community based agencies to use their funding to “rewards” their CEOs instead of feeding the elders. The privatization of a number of government functions has generated financial anomalies that were not there before, anomalies that government workers are afraid to audit for fear they will lose their jobs. The alternative to government control in the private sector has allowed private corporations to create monopolies with public funds without accountability and control. Again, if you think Halliburton is doing a great job in Iraq and the privatization of most of the federal and state functions are the way to save money, Bush is your man.

We have a clear choice for president when it comes to protecting and honoring Social Security. We either choose a president that is going to honor Social Security for generations to come or choose a president that is going to change the Social Security system as soon as he gets his second term in office. If you think President Bush is not going to change the retirement age or the benefits, think again. In 1983, President Regan changed Social Security without a lot of publicity or no publicity at all. It increased the normal retirement age from 65 to 67 and reduced early retirement benefits payable at 62 from 80% to 70%. The message is there when Alan Greenspan suggested that to deal with the irresponsible and huge federal deficit this president has created the nation should look at cutting the benefits of future retirees. The president’s response was that he will not do it to the present retirees or those who are close to retirement, but that future retirees is another issue. He failed to clarify how close you need to be to retirement to be “grandfathered” to the existing Social Security program. As usual, the devil is in this detail because close to retirement could be one year into the future, meaning that all those baby boomers that are counting on their social security monthly check will not see one. The fact that our President has been followed Reagan’s economic ideas almost to the last detail support the assumption that Social Security will also be modernized is such a way that the new normal retirement age will be 70 and early retirement benefits could be payable at age 65 at 60% benefit.

I am not rich so that I don’t need social security. I am counting on Social Security to be part of my financial strategy to survive in old age without becoming indigent. I don’t have 5, 10, 15 or more years to invest and learn a new social security system and play by the new rules this government will be creating for me. If you are in your forties fifties or sixties this is your only chance to protect what you have earned. The sad part is that the individuals that are proposing these changes to Social Security do not need the income to survive and they cannot relate to the common person.

We either choose a president and a vice president that understand the need to fight for the creation of jobs in America or a president and vice president who believe in helping corporations generate more profit. Sometimes the creation of profit comes with taking our jobs to other countries regardless of the effect this has on us and our families. Cheap labor increases profits, no health care benefit to the workers increases profits and offering workers no pension plans also increase profits. Weakening the protection of workers in a variety of areas, including the reconsideration of the Family Leave Act also increases profits at the expense of the family, the same family unit we are trying to strengthen,

The choice is clear; do we want to protect corporations? Do we want to allow HMOs to control individual choices of medication and medical care? Do we want to be forced to work until we die because there is no Social Security and financial safety net to protect us in old age? Do we want families to carry the burden of caregiving with no Government help? Do we want government to run our private lives? If you answer yes to all the above you will re-elect President Bush but if you answer no, John Kerry is your candidate.

The choice is clear. It is time to bring another leader to the White House. It is time to make sure the dubious plan about records, appointments, services, educational degrees, deficits and lucrative deals end. For some of us in the baby boom generation this is the most important election in our lives; it will determine if our old age will be filled with dignity and control or whether it will be the scariest years of our existence.