The Social Security Fear Factor
I've
posted a number of articles on the proclaimed “War On Social Security”,
but the first two days of 2005 have seen even more writing about the
GOP plan to abolish Social Security.
Here's a rundown (with links) of some of the writing of the past two days:
New York Times Editorial: “The Social Security Fear Factor”
As
it often does with dissenting professional opinion, the administration
is ignoring the actuaries. But that doesn't alter the facts or common
sense. If the $10 trillion figure is essentially bogus, so is the claim
that Social Security is in crisis. The assertion that doing nothing
would be costlier than enacting a privatization plan also turns out to
be wrong, by the estimates of Congress's own budget agency.
…
Contrary
to Mr. Bush's frequent assertion that Social Security is constantly
imperiled by political meddling, it has in fact been preserved and
improved by political intervention throughout its 70-year history, most
significantly in 1983. The system could – and should – be strengthened
again by a modest package of benefit cuts and tax increases phased in
over decades.
…
In
effect, the administration's plan would get rid of the financial burden
of Social Security by getting rid of Social Security. The plan shifts
the financial risk of growing old onto each individual and off of the
government – where it is dispersed among a very large population, as
with any sensible insurance policy. In a privatized system, you may do
fine, but your fellow retirees may not, or vice versa.
Josh Marshall on “The Debt Problem”:
But
about $3 trillion of those dollars we needed to fund the 1980s and
1990s deficits we managed to borrow closer to home. We borrowed it from
the Social Security (and a few other government) trust fund(s).
Almost
the entirety of President Bush's Social Security phase-out plan comes
down to a simple proposition: finding out how not to pay it back.
Paul Krugman, “Stopping The Bum's Rush”:
There
are two serious threats to the federal government's solvency over the
next couple of decades. One is the fact that the general fund has
already plunged deeply into deficit, largely because of President
Bush's unprecedented insistence on cutting taxes in the face of a war.
The other is the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
As
a budget concern, Social Security isn't remotely in the same league.
The long-term cost of the Bush tax cuts is five times the budget
office's estimate of Social Security's deficit over the next 75 years.
The botched prescription drug bill passed in 2003 does more, all by
itself, to increase the long-run budget deficit than the projected rise
in Social Security expenses.
And finally today – the Washington Post details some of the policy proposals being floated around the White House:
The
Bush administration has signaled that it will propose changing the
formula that sets initial Social Security benefit levels, cutting
promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades, according to
several Republicans close to the White House.
Under
the proposal, the first-year benefits for retirees would be calculated
using inflation rates rather than the rise in wages over a worker's
lifetime. Because wages tend to rise considerably faster than
inflation, the new formula would stunt the growth of benefits, slowly
at first but more quickly by the middle of the century. The White House
hopes that some, if not all, of those benefit cuts would be made up by
gains in newly created personal investment accounts that would harness
returns on stocks and bonds.
With all
of this going on, I have a request (and challenge) to Blog For Iowa
readers – drop a note or make a phone call to your congressman.
Let's find out where our delegations stand on the Social Security
Abolition Plan of 2005.
I will post anything attached to the comments section, or e-mailed to cothompson@gmail.com
(I
won't post your name – just whatever information you can get from your
representatives. We need to make sure that we hold our
congressional delegation accountable in 2006 for what they say and do
in 2005.)
Blog For Iowa 