Big Lies from Bush on Social Security
The Bush Administration, in the absence of a plausible argument for their proposals, resorts to the Big Lie: repeat something often enough and loudly enough that people eventually believe it. To justify a war of aggression, they claimed Saddam had WMDs and was involved in 9/11 to boot. They knew this wasn't true, but it sounded better than saying we were going to invade Iraq because Saddam wasn't our friend anymore. Now they are using the same propaganda technique on their next project, destroying Social Security.
The far right has never liked Social Security, from its inception, when it smacked of socialism, through George Bush's 1978 campaign for Congress, when he claimed the system would go broke by 1988 if private accounts were not introduced. Instead, it now directly benefits 47 million Americans, providing a powerful counterargument to the Right's government-is-bad mantra. And it was introduced by FDR, whom the Republicans hate so much they tried to take his picture off the dime.
But even Karl Rove couldn't sell "we don't like it because it works and Democrats invented it." Hence, as outlined in a leaked memo sent by Rove aide Peter Wehner to leading conservatives, their strategy is "to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. . . . that reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform."
This is Big Lie number one: the sky is falling. Convince people that they won't get their promised benefits anyway, and they will accept the system's destruction. But the truth is that Social Security is not in crisis. If nothing is changed in the next forty or so years, benefits can be paid in full until sometime between 2042 and 2053. If Bush looks very, very carefully he could probably find some more immediate problems to worry about. But even if no changes are made, and the Social Security trust fund is indeed depleted sometime in the 2040s or 50s, the system would still have the Social Security taxes being paid by those working at the time. That will be enough to pay benefits significantly higher than those Bush proposes.
OK, so the sky isn't falling. But there is some risk that benefits will be reduced about forty years from now. Since everything else in the world is fine, suppose we do want to change that. Here comes Bush's Big Lie number two: we can fix this by introducing private accounts. The truth is that private accounts would do nothing to improve the fiscal strength of the system. In fact, they would make it worse. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if money is diverted to private accounts the trust fund would be depleted sixteen years earlier.
But the Administration's plan does claim to balance the books in the long run. It does this through a simple and reliable mechanism: cutting benefits. The financial heart of the Bush plan is determining future benefit increases based on the rise in prices instead of the rise in wages as is done now. On average, wages rise faster than prices, which is one reason standards of living go up--we don't have to spend all our income on flour, molasses and tea like people did in the 18th century. So using prices instead of wages would, over the years, dramatically reduce the benefits paid, allowing the system to support more retirees without raising taxes. For an excellent summary from the Economic Policy Institute of the proposed change in benefit calculations, see their February 9, 2005 snapshot. Similarly, analysis by CBO indicates that almost all retirees, from those first affected to children born today, would receive lower benefits under the President's proposal.
This plan is not supported by the American people. According to a recent Washington Post poll, the public opposes cutting benefits by more than two to one. The only change that draws strong support is--surprise--making the rich pay their fair share. An astounding 81% favor charging Social Security taxes on income over $90,000. This same poll shows that few people know that Bush's plan comes with a hefty price tag--several trillion dollars in the next decade, and trillions more down the line. The Left has work to do to publicize this little detail.
There are many other reasons why the Bush plan is a bad idea: the danger to survivor and disability benefits, increased management costs, diversion of funds to pay fees charged by financial companies, and the failure of privatized systems abroad to maintain a decent standard of living. But fundamentally, the Bush plan is to spend a few trillion dollars now to make things worse for retirees in forty years. No wonder they are lying to us about it.
John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.
The far right has never liked Social Security, from its inception, when it smacked of socialism, through George Bush's 1978 campaign for Congress, when he claimed the system would go broke by 1988 if private accounts were not introduced. Instead, it now directly benefits 47 million Americans, providing a powerful counterargument to the Right's government-is-bad mantra. And it was introduced by FDR, whom the Republicans hate so much they tried to take his picture off the dime.
But even Karl Rove couldn't sell "we don't like it because it works and Democrats invented it." Hence, as outlined in a leaked memo sent by Rove aide Peter Wehner to leading conservatives, their strategy is "to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. . . . that reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform."
This is Big Lie number one: the sky is falling. Convince people that they won't get their promised benefits anyway, and they will accept the system's destruction. But the truth is that Social Security is not in crisis. If nothing is changed in the next forty or so years, benefits can be paid in full until sometime between 2042 and 2053. If Bush looks very, very carefully he could probably find some more immediate problems to worry about. But even if no changes are made, and the Social Security trust fund is indeed depleted sometime in the 2040s or 50s, the system would still have the Social Security taxes being paid by those working at the time. That will be enough to pay benefits significantly higher than those Bush proposes.
OK, so the sky isn't falling. But there is some risk that benefits will be reduced about forty years from now. Since everything else in the world is fine, suppose we do want to change that. Here comes Bush's Big Lie number two: we can fix this by introducing private accounts. The truth is that private accounts would do nothing to improve the fiscal strength of the system. In fact, they would make it worse. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if money is diverted to private accounts the trust fund would be depleted sixteen years earlier.
But the Administration's plan does claim to balance the books in the long run. It does this through a simple and reliable mechanism: cutting benefits. The financial heart of the Bush plan is determining future benefit increases based on the rise in prices instead of the rise in wages as is done now. On average, wages rise faster than prices, which is one reason standards of living go up--we don't have to spend all our income on flour, molasses and tea like people did in the 18th century. So using prices instead of wages would, over the years, dramatically reduce the benefits paid, allowing the system to support more retirees without raising taxes. For an excellent summary from the Economic Policy Institute of the proposed change in benefit calculations, see their February 9, 2005 snapshot. Similarly, analysis by CBO indicates that almost all retirees, from those first affected to children born today, would receive lower benefits under the President's proposal.
This plan is not supported by the American people. According to a recent Washington Post poll, the public opposes cutting benefits by more than two to one. The only change that draws strong support is--surprise--making the rich pay their fair share. An astounding 81% favor charging Social Security taxes on income over $90,000. This same poll shows that few people know that Bush's plan comes with a hefty price tag--several trillion dollars in the next decade, and trillions more down the line. The Left has work to do to publicize this little detail.
There are many other reasons why the Bush plan is a bad idea: the danger to survivor and disability benefits, increased management costs, diversion of funds to pay fees charged by financial companies, and the failure of privatized systems abroad to maintain a decent standard of living. But fundamentally, the Bush plan is to spend a few trillion dollars now to make things worse for retirees in forty years. No wonder they are lying to us about it.
John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home