SOCIAL SECURITY STOCK PLANS ILL-CONCEIVED.

Byline: Ralph Estes

THE big campaign to privatize Social Security is rolling along, with a bipartisan bunch of Democrats and Republicans succumbing to the siren call of Corporate America.

Was that ol' Charlie Wilson turning over in his grave and shouting Hallelujah?

Wilson was President Dwight Eisenhower's defense secretary, who achieved a certain infamy with his declaration that ``what's good for General Motors is good for the country.'' If Wilson were with us today, he would surely be delighted with the proposition that Social Security funds be invested in the stock market.

But less-wealthy Americans had better beware. Diversion of any substantial portion of Social Security funds into the stock market would produce nothing less than a revolutionary change in our nation because it would tie the future of every working American to the stock market.

As long as Social Security funds are invested in federal Treasury bonds, as they are today, the security of those funds is not directly dependent on the performance of the stock market. But put funds in common stocks, and suddenly what is good for General Motors and the rest of Corporate America becomes crucially important to everyone who needs to rely on Social Security during retirement.

If our retirement security depends on the stock market, then we will evaluate government action by the effect it may have on the stock market.

Regulations addressing corporate environmental pollution, plant and product safety, workplace discrimination and sexual harassment, however necessary otherwise, may be opposed simply because they might depress affected companies' stock prices.

With the help of Corporate America's public relations officers, we may learn to excuse corporate misbehavior and abuse in the name of our retirement security.

Meanwhile, we could expect the income tax burden to be shifted entirely onto the shoulders of working people.

In the 1960s, corporations paid about one-third of the income taxes and individuals paid two-thirds. A creeping erosion under both Republican and Democratic administrations has shifted that burden, until now 90 percent is borne by individuals and only 10 percent by corporations.

But if high corporate profits are seen as necessary to keep stock prices up to ensure the integrity of Social Security, then the complete elimination of corporate income taxes will not be long in coming.

The beneficiaries of this proposal would be the big corporations whose stock is publicly traded. Not the mom-and-pop companies, the start-ups, the privately held entrepreneurial enterprises.

And that's why we can look for the really big money to be brought into play on this issue.

After the dust settles, after the blizzard of bucks has fallen on Congress and the administration, what would we have? Nothing less than a different nation, one in which the future economic security of every worker was tied to stock prices.

Who would then be in the driver's seat on national policy? Not Congress, not the president, not the voters, but Wall Street traders and corporate executives never elected by the people.

We'd have to come up with a new name for our political system, because ``democracy'' just wouldn't quite fit. Welcome to the corpocracy.