Social Security: It's a Bush-made crisis
Published March 09, 2004
'It turns out that the fiscal crisis of Social Security is grossly exaggerated by its political enemies. The trustees [in the 2003 Social Security Trustees' Report] project Social Security balances forward for 75 years. Their report uses pessimistic annual growth assumptions of just 1.6%. Even so, the 75-year shortfall is projected at just $3.8 trillion, or just 0.73% of gross domestic product over this time. By contrast, the Bush tax cuts equal $8.7 trillion, or 1.68% of GDP over 75 years, according to Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution, and new proposed tax cuts would push the cost to over $12 trillion.
'[Using the Trustees' projections] If the Bush tax cuts are pared back by less than half, the money can be used to replenish Social Security, and the vaunted "crisis" disappears.
'Whether to cut Social Security benefits for the 96% of Americans in the system or reduce tax cuts for the top 2% is, of course, a political choice.
'All of the conservative proposals for restoring the Social Security system's health are different forms of cuts in benefits.
'Raising the retirement age is a reduction in benefits. So is fiddling with the cost-of-living formula. Partial privatization is the most costly and intellectually dishonest fix of all. Not only would it reduce the guaranteed part of the retire- ment package, but it would require the government to borrow $2 trillion to $4 trillion to keep paying benefits to current retirees while payroll taxes of younger Americans were diverted to new personal accounts.' [Finally, An Honest Debate Business Week 03/15/2004 subscription]
Tell your Senators and House Representativeto come clean and do the right thing (cut back the tax cuts).
- Social Security: It's a Bush-made crisis
- Published: March 09, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Hal Pawluk
- Hal Pawluk's BC Writer page
- Hal Pawluk's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The basic approach seems to be the "starving the beast" principle they first enunciated during the Reagan years:
The starve-the-beast doctrine
is now firmly within the conservative mainstream. George W. Bush himself
seemed to endorse the doctrine as the budget surplus
evaporated: in August 2001 he called the disappearing surplus ''incredibly
positive news'' because it would put Congress in a ''fiscal straitjacket.''
[The
Tax Cut Con 09/14/2003]
Who gives a fuck about social security. You should be putting money away yourself. Why should the government take care of you.
This "i'm entitled to it" philosophy has got to stop.
Is there some reason this particular topic seems to drive you berserk, Tom?
Tom is obviously an idiot. You should care about it because the govt. steals 6.2% of you income for it each year. Money you won't see when you retire. Money you could be investing right now on your own. What a fucking joke. God Bless America!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/13547)
One interesting tidbit is that the only "succesful" privatization of Social Security occurred (under the direction of University of Chicago right wingers) in Chile. That is, under a military dictatorship.
The same principle applies here: the GOP is using the fiscal crisis caused by its military expansionism and tax cuts to force changes in Social Security that people would not otherwise accept.
It's time to admit that, in important respects, the same Bush administration that claims to be spreading democracy abroad is increasingly resembling a military dictatorship at home. That's not hyperbole. It's a simple fact.
It's also an open question whether terrorists or the GOP are the greater threat to America. Both are attacking the foundations of the republic, and our democracy.