Reality Check
Last night, President Bush addressed the nation asking each of us to support his second term agenda. He talked about privatizing Social Security, plans to expand the No Child Left Behind Act, and his other priorities for the upcoming year.
Now it's time for a reality check courtesy of the Moving Ideas Network which Americans for Democratic Action is a part of.
BUSH ON SOCIAL SECURITY: "Here is why the personal accounts are a better deal: Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver."
Reality check: Privatization of Social Security risks the program's success and endangers the many individuals who rely on its funds for survival. The administration's plan calls for severe cuts to benefits forcing workers to try to make up the difference through risky private accounts. Experts estimate that workers will only be able to recoup part of what they will lose in benefits.
BUSH ON EDUCATION: "Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we're closing the achievement gap for minority students."
Reality check: The No Child Left Behind Act focuses on punishments rather than help, federal mandates rather than local flexibility, and privatization rather than teacher-led, family-oriented solutions. The President has failed to fully fund this program leaving states with the heavy burden of fulfilling goals without appropriate funding.
BUSH ON HOMELAND SECURITY: "We've created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half million first responders."
Reality check: Funding for first responders in emergencies, such as police, fire fighters, paramedics, and emergency health care departments, are actually facing cuts in their funding since 9-11. The Environmental Protection Agency states there are over 123 chemical plants in the U.S. that could endanger more than 1 million people if attacked by terrorists.
Now it's time for a reality check courtesy of the Moving Ideas Network which Americans for Democratic Action is a part of.
BUSH ON SOCIAL SECURITY: "Here is why the personal accounts are a better deal: Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver."
Reality check: Privatization of Social Security risks the program's success and endangers the many individuals who rely on its funds for survival. The administration's plan calls for severe cuts to benefits forcing workers to try to make up the difference through risky private accounts. Experts estimate that workers will only be able to recoup part of what they will lose in benefits.
BUSH ON EDUCATION: "Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we're closing the achievement gap for minority students."
Reality check: The No Child Left Behind Act focuses on punishments rather than help, federal mandates rather than local flexibility, and privatization rather than teacher-led, family-oriented solutions. The President has failed to fully fund this program leaving states with the heavy burden of fulfilling goals without appropriate funding.
BUSH ON HOMELAND SECURITY: "We've created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half million first responders."
Reality check: Funding for first responders in emergencies, such as police, fire fighters, paramedics, and emergency health care departments, are actually facing cuts in their funding since 9-11. The Environmental Protection Agency states there are over 123 chemical plants in the U.S. that could endanger more than 1 million people if attacked by terrorists.
2 Comments:
It's easy to slam what you don't understand. The current system is far riskier than a private investment plan. You don't even let the idea gel before you slam it. If we are to solve the problem you must remain open and do some serious thinknig. Try coming up with workable alternatives. What really turns me off about your arguiement is that it has no precident for belief and is based upon wild conjecture of the future. Examine the plan yourself in detail. Don't believe either the right or the left until you have substantiation for the statements being made by both. I prefer to give this a chance to be fleshed out into a true design before having a fixed opinion. Personally, I want to insure the health of the system. If that means allowing some percentage of private investment in a controlled fashion then so be it. We need to scrutinize the ENTIRE proposed plan and quit naysaying before that is done.
I wanted to mention something about bahiabob's remark that ADA's argument, "has no precedent for belief and is based on wild conjecture of the future." Actually, several countries have already tried privatizing their Social Security systems, and all have experienced horrible failures (look up what happened to Great Britian, Chile and Australia for details about this).
I also don't think it's wise to simply view this as an argument of the liberals vs. conservatives. Look at who are the main proponents of either argument. On one hand you've got AARP, a group who's neither liberal or conservative, but exists solely to protect the retired and elderly of this country. They're defending the current Social Security system (although aren't necessarily against making various adgustments). On the other hand you've got the Wall Street-based pundits (such as the Club for Growth), who advocate privatization. Incidentally, those people stand to gain handsomely if privatization were to occur. Meanwhile, there's the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Trustees, who are non-partisan government groups. Both of these organizations have explained in detailed reports that while Social Security could use some tweaking to extend the life of its trustfund, it is certainly in no danger of becoming bankrupt or invalid.
Regardless of what your personal politics are, ask yourself: What motives do you think are driving the AARP to oppose privatization and what motivations do you think are driving Wall Street firms to make their arguments in favor of privatization? Who do you think is more likely to put the welfare of the retired and elderly as its top priority and who do you think is more likely to put its own financial gains at the top of its priority list? Or you can look at it in more partisan terms if you want: Which party (Dems or Reps) has a history of being particularly concerned with the welfare of the poorer and meaker members of our society, and which party is better known for representing the interests of the wealthy, even if it comes at the expense of the less fortunate? (Recent example--tax cuts for the rich and program funding cuts for the poor)Answer these questions honestly and I think you'll see that privatizing Social Security isn't all what the administration claims it's cracked up to be.
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home