Whither the Tickler? To the Battle Stations!
So I was thinking about maybe changing the focus of FT a bit for 2005, maybe mix it up a bit. In fact, I was just about to throw in the political commentary towel for good and turn this site into a one-stop pat-reflections-on-swarthy-natives web portal, when it suddenly occurred to me how great Bush's social security initiative is. Its great because, while it does involve the same dastardly tactics as the Iraq freak-out did -- scare the bejesus out of the population by just making shit up -- it is clearly different in two crucial respects:
1. Unlike national security and intelligence matters, where Bush & Co. could say 'it's confidential, but trust us, we know Saddam has anthrax, nukes, unpiloted drones capable of reaching the Jersey shore, and a tractor beam / death ray combo weapon', Social Security is a matter of public record. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt -- because Bush's own GAO says so -- that Bush is misleading us when he says, "The system will go bust, flat broke if we don't do something now." Sure, the fact that our national media outlets are cowering pissants before the White House (when not actual employees) does mitigate this to some extent. But blurring the facts is much harder when you can't control the public's access to them.
2. The dems are in the polar opposite position than they were on the war. National security was uncertain territory for the dems. They didn't want to appear weak. But Social Security is their bread and butter. Defending it is what being a dem is all about. It brings them together and gives them a sense of purpose. Bush's proposal, if the dems play it right, will be as beneficial to them as the gay marriage decisions in Massachussettes were to the radical right.
In fact, if you want my early and far-away prediction, I bet the whole debate will sow discord among congressional republicans and end up hamstringing Bush for the next four years, at least on domestic policy. Republican legislators know they are getting the shaft -- Bush doesn't care about getting reelected any more, so he's suddenly shooting for the moon, while they will all have to face democratic contenders running ads about how they gutted Social Security.
Anyway, I just talked to a friend of mine, a young guy, who I was surprised to hear saying things like "yeah, but isn't it true that the system is going bankrupt?" and "I heard that the government doesn't really have to pay back the trust fund - its just bookkeeping". OK, the guy is from Texas, but he lives in Austin... The point you or someone you know may be actually buying into the 'crisis is now' claptrap. Bush and Co. are targetting the young, so it is up to us young people to convince our fellow young people to just take a look at the facts:
1. According to the Social Security Administration, if no changes at all are made, the program will have enough money to pay full benefits through 2041. According to the Congressional Budget Office, full benefits can be paid until 2052. After that, the system will not be broke. It will simply have to reduce benefits by a small amount.
2. Yes, the government (general fund) does have to pay the Social Security fund. SS owns government Treasury bills, the same ones many of us private citizens own, the same ones that the Chinese own several trillion of. If the government defaults on SS's T-bills, no T-bills anywhere are safe, the world economy collapses, and it's Thunderdome time.
3. (and this is something that even Krugman the great fails to mention in his excellent essay here) Social Security is insurance -- its function is to stabilize the economy in times of recession, to guarantee a minimum to retirees no matter how long they live. Privatization means you have however much you won on the stock market, to last you for as long as you live. Even if privatization delivers higher rates of return than traditional SS, which it very well may not, if you live longer than average (as the lucky half does, by definition) you will still have less than you would have than under SS. The unlucky half, of course, has more benefits per month, theoretically. But how do they know they are going to die early?
But getting back to my original point: I am not at a comparative advantage here. There is plenty of good running commentary from the regular suspects and Kevin Drum has put together an excellent and concise primer here. The more under 40 year olds out there forcefully asserting the lack of crisis, the sooner we get to hear Bush's hand-flesh sizzle.
And now how about some swarthy natives!
1. Unlike national security and intelligence matters, where Bush & Co. could say 'it's confidential, but trust us, we know Saddam has anthrax, nukes, unpiloted drones capable of reaching the Jersey shore, and a tractor beam / death ray combo weapon', Social Security is a matter of public record. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt -- because Bush's own GAO says so -- that Bush is misleading us when he says, "The system will go bust, flat broke if we don't do something now." Sure, the fact that our national media outlets are cowering pissants before the White House (when not actual employees) does mitigate this to some extent. But blurring the facts is much harder when you can't control the public's access to them.
2. The dems are in the polar opposite position than they were on the war. National security was uncertain territory for the dems. They didn't want to appear weak. But Social Security is their bread and butter. Defending it is what being a dem is all about. It brings them together and gives them a sense of purpose. Bush's proposal, if the dems play it right, will be as beneficial to them as the gay marriage decisions in Massachussettes were to the radical right.
In fact, if you want my early and far-away prediction, I bet the whole debate will sow discord among congressional republicans and end up hamstringing Bush for the next four years, at least on domestic policy. Republican legislators know they are getting the shaft -- Bush doesn't care about getting reelected any more, so he's suddenly shooting for the moon, while they will all have to face democratic contenders running ads about how they gutted Social Security.
Anyway, I just talked to a friend of mine, a young guy, who I was surprised to hear saying things like "yeah, but isn't it true that the system is going bankrupt?" and "I heard that the government doesn't really have to pay back the trust fund - its just bookkeeping". OK, the guy is from Texas, but he lives in Austin... The point you or someone you know may be actually buying into the 'crisis is now' claptrap. Bush and Co. are targetting the young, so it is up to us young people to convince our fellow young people to just take a look at the facts:
1. According to the Social Security Administration, if no changes at all are made, the program will have enough money to pay full benefits through 2041. According to the Congressional Budget Office, full benefits can be paid until 2052. After that, the system will not be broke. It will simply have to reduce benefits by a small amount.
2. Yes, the government (general fund) does have to pay the Social Security fund. SS owns government Treasury bills, the same ones many of us private citizens own, the same ones that the Chinese own several trillion of. If the government defaults on SS's T-bills, no T-bills anywhere are safe, the world economy collapses, and it's Thunderdome time.
3. (and this is something that even Krugman the great fails to mention in his excellent essay here) Social Security is insurance -- its function is to stabilize the economy in times of recession, to guarantee a minimum to retirees no matter how long they live. Privatization means you have however much you won on the stock market, to last you for as long as you live. Even if privatization delivers higher rates of return than traditional SS, which it very well may not, if you live longer than average (as the lucky half does, by definition) you will still have less than you would have than under SS. The unlucky half, of course, has more benefits per month, theoretically. But how do they know they are going to die early?
But getting back to my original point: I am not at a comparative advantage here. There is plenty of good running commentary from the regular suspects and Kevin Drum has put together an excellent and concise primer here. The more under 40 year olds out there forcefully asserting the lack of crisis, the sooner we get to hear Bush's hand-flesh sizzle.
And now how about some swarthy natives!
posted by Benjamin Lessing at 8:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home