There’s something positively Orwellian about this concept, which Bush is slated to talk about in his State of the Union address (for advance propaganda, see David Brooks’ Saturday New York Times column). The idea seems to be that America is inexorably becoming an “ownership society”: if you own something, it doesn’t matter how little you own or how inadequate that may be for your needs. You are (lucky you!) a full and equal part of the ownership society.

Of course, some are a bit more equal than others in this glorious new society. Take retirement savings, really the focus of Bush’s proposals to shepherd this new ownership society along. At this point, huge numbers of Americans–75 million workers and their spouses–have no employer-provided retirement accounts whatsoever and hence no easy way to hold stocks and join the ownership society. And the ones who do aren’t necessarily flush: the average stock holdings of a middle income household are only $15,000–even among those approaching retirement age, the average amount in retirement accounts is only about double that figure.

So lots of people don’t have employer-provided retirement accounts (including 86 percent of part-time workers and 83 percent of those who work for small firms). And those who do typically don’t save enough. In fact, an amazing 94 percent of those who have a 401(k) plan don’t contribute the maximum to that plan.

What’s the solution? Give everyone access to a 401(k) plan and make it easier to save? Nah. That’s what silly Democrats would say! Since some are more equal than others, the sensible thing is to create a new category of tax-favored accounts with higher contribution limits ($7,500), so that the affluent, who already max out their retirement contributions in 401(k)s, can save more without being taxed. Not only that, they get a bigger break for doing so, because their marginal tax rate is higher. Perfect!

That’s, in essence, what the administration’s plan for new Lifetime Savings Accounts/Retirement Savings Accounts (LSAs/RSAs) will accomplish. Sure, anyone can take advantage of these vehicles, but it stands to reason that the people most likely to do so are those with extra money they want to hide from Uncle Sam, not those (94 percent) who aren’t even contributing the maximum to their employer-provided plans. Nor is it likely that those who currently lack such a plan are going to come out of the woodwork to contribute to LSAs/RSAs. Indeed, even with currently existing tax-favored vehicles like IRAs, 96 percent of those eligible still don’t contribute the maximum.

What possible excuse can there be for this kind of public policy? The only kind they can offer is pure ideology: since everyone will be an owner (or at least have the opportunity to own–practically the same thing!), it doesn’t matter a whit whether some have much and others have too little to get by. They are all participating–or could participate–in the noble act of ownership and so their material situation is not that important; it’s the idea of ownership that’s important, not the actual number of dollars you own.

Wow. You think DR’s kidding. Nope. That’s what these folks really believe. DR had the rare privilege of attending and speaking at a recent Capitol Hill forum on “The Investor Class” sponsored by the New American Foundation. DR and Gene Sperling tried to keep ‘em honest, pointing out the facts mentioned above and many others, but it didn’t make much of an impression on Grover Norquist and his buddies. It just didn’t seem to matter much to them whether folks had enough for retirement. Provided some of their money was in stocks and they were therefore part of the “investor class” and (of course) the “ownership society”, they were on the road to freedom! Hallelujah and all that.

Moreover, these folks believe that, as more people enter this investor class, they are likely to become Republicans and therefore this trend leads inexorably toward GOP domination. DR’s a wee bit skeptical of this analysis, but he’s a charitable fellow, so he’ll go their bid to increase the investor class one better. Instead of these clunky LSAs/RSAs, which won’t produce real gains in stock ownership, since the folks most likely to use them already have stock, let’s make everyone an investor.

The way to do this is to adopt Sperling’s suggestion to set up a universal pension system that would provide every worker with a fully portable retirement account. Under such a system, all the various IRA and related accounts would be rolled into one tax-favored account and workers could direct cash from any and all their 401(k) accounts into this universal account, which would remain with them as they moved from job to job. These accounts would be further supported by providing up to $1,000 a year in matching contributions for savings deducted from paychecks–a one-to-one match for middle-income workers and a two-to-one match for lower-income workers.

According to the Norquists of the world, Democrats would be signing their death warrant by backing such a system, since practically everyone would wind owning some stocks (and more would wind up owning significant amounts). So why aren’t Norquist and the rest of the GOP rushing to embrace this proposal instead of these inefficient LSAs/RSAs which would only marginally increase the investor class, the foundation stone of their ownership society? Guess it’s more important to make sure some are still more equal than others in their ownership society.

Sounds like an opening for Democrats to DR. Our ownership society vs. theirs. DR suspects that the public, given a choice, will go for ours every time. Let’s make sure they get that choice (are you listening, Democratic presidential candidates?)