Josh Marshal posts on Talking Points Memo about our administration's steady march towards a Social Security reform that not only costs way too much to implement, but also compromises the exact purpose for which it was created in the first place. Mr. Marshall writes about this frequently and makes a lot of good observations. The following is a succinct, nicely abbreviated piece (for those with short attention span) that gets right to the point about the wool that the republicans are trying to pull over everyone's eyes about the cost of their proposed reform. (That's without going into the real necessity and the major pitfalls that come with this kind of mucking with the financial security of Americans).
Here is one of many comparisons and observations we'll be making to provide some counterweight to the White House's efforts to deceive the American people about Social Security.The Social Security Trustees estimate that over the next 75 years the program faces a budget shortfall of $3.7 trillion.
As we've noted previously and will again, the Trustees use a very pessimistic estimate of future economic growth to arrive at that figure. But, for the moment, let's stipulate to that amount.
$3.7 trillion is a lot of money.
But how much will the president's Medicare drug benefit plan cost over the next 75 years?
$8.1 trillion, say the Trustees of that program.
And over the next 75 years how much will the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts cost if made permanent, as the president wants?
$11.6 trillion.
So you add that up and you get $3.7 trillion we need to cover Social Security's shortfall and $19.7 trillion we need just to cover the costs of the two major domestic policy initiatives of the president's first term.
And yet Social Security, says the president, is in crisis and destined to chew through the rest of the federal budget.
(These statistics are noted in this budgeting summary from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)
I would submit to you that in any reasonable universe this simple comparison shatters the president's credibility on fiscal 'icebergs' and spending crises. And yet these basic facts seem to garner little notice.
That is because, in the last couple decades, in the culture of Washington -- particularly among the elite commentators and reporters (just watch Meet the Press) -- presuming that Social Security is financially unviable has become an ready shorthand for public policy seriousness, much as many use a basic knowledge of imported wines or a familiarity with classical music to signal refinement.
This is something the president is exploiting. And the defenders of Social Security must find ways to overcome it.
-- Josh Marshal
He also points out a couple of problems with the social security reform that seem to be overlooked by those who blindly support it here and here. I love how he refers to spineless democrats as the "Fainthearted Faction." Haha.
I guess on a personal level, one of the things that pisses me off so much about the proposed social security "reform" is the prospect of handing all of the money that is currently entrusted in the federal treasury and reserved for those who have been paying into the system since they began working in this country, over to huge brokerage houses like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Solomon Smith Barney, etc. First of all, I pay a shitload in Social Security taxes. I have already been paying into SS for ten years, and assuming I work until I'm 60 (which, god help me, I won't...), the prospect of being screwed out of all that hard earned money really ticks me off. Then there is the fact that I do quite a bit of securities work with the lawyers I work for, defending big financial institutions from allegations of fraud. And believe me, the lawsuits never stop pouring in. I just don't want to be one of those plaintiffs 35 years from now, trying to recover what I already worked so long and hard to earn. It makes me sad to think of anyone in that position.
Posted by Maria at January 10, 2005 12:44 PMOkay, you don't think this is the way to 'reform' Social Security.
How would YOU do it Maria?
Posted by: Mad Mikey at January 10, 2005 12:56 PMI don't think that our social security program currently requires reform.
Posted by: Maria at January 10, 2005 12:57 PMYou don't??
Then you think that around 2030 that everything will be hunky-dory??
Posted by: Mad Mikey at January 10, 2005 01:16 PMI also don't think it needs fixing, but when it does I would simply raise the payroll tax to cover a higher percentage of earned income. Also, I would begin to consider the inclusiion of unearned income.
RGE
Typical Dem/Lib response - raise the tax.....
Posted by: Mad Mikey at January 10, 2005 02:12 PMNot only shuld we raise the payroll tax on the highest paid workers we should lower it on the working poor.
RGE
Mad Mikey, I have a question for you. Do you think it is fiscally responsible for Bush to make a tax cut permanent for the rich at a cost of more than 11 trillion in tax revenue at the same time that he conducts a war at the cost of hundreds of billions, at the same time that he attempts to overhaul social security at the cost of 3.7 trillion? Do you think it is fiscally CONSERVATIVE to do all of that at the same time?
Posted by: Maria at January 10, 2005 02:47 PMActually, he made a tax cut permanent for everyone.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 10, 2005 03:01 PMMad Mikey, Let's PRETEND that the tax cut benefitted everyone for the sake of debate.
Do you think it is fiscally conservative/responsible to take this course of action while conducting an incredibly expensive war and attempting to overhaul social security?
Posted by: Maria at January 10, 2005 03:03 PMThen you think that around 2030 that everything will be hunky-dory??
I imagine that as long as our social security is not plundered by politicians in the meantime, we can make the needed adjustment. I can tell you that I personally can't think of a good reason why the $200 that comes out of each and every one of my paychecks for social security wouldn't be right there waiting for me when I'm ready to retire, unless of course, my money was being diverted to pay for things that it wasn't meant for...
Posted by: Maria at January 10, 2005 03:26 PM~the sad thing here is how GW is able to hypnotize the American public into believing what he wants to do is actually good for the American public...neo-con right-wing Repubs already need to be told what to say, think and believe, that's a given, but the rest of us, the free-thinking educated ones are reluctant to be sold on his bullshit (i.e. WMD's)...but if you open your eyes and think about it GW is actually doing this to promote a windfall for all his wealthy old-white guy owners of brokerage houses who need a few more billions of dollars to pad their wealth...and to throw down to the Repubs efforts in '08...I can understand your angst about getting screwed out of what you already paid into, so are my 'rents, retired folk who would rather see GW fade away then see teir SS fucked with...~
Posted by: btezra at January 10, 2005 04:43 PMThe thing to remember is that this administration, if given a choice of fixing something or of fucking it up, seems to be almost genetically driven to fuck it up.
RGE
You think they take that money and put it in a lock box for you?
Take a little time to study our Social Security program.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 10, 2005 06:31 PMOther than the 'expensive war', everything was already planned out I would suspect.
The additional cost(s) of the war weren't factored in, but overall - YES, it's responsible.
BTW, that tax cut that favored the *cough* rich?? got part of that and I'm not "rich" by any stretch of the imaginiation.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at January 10, 2005 06:44 PMAll we need do is keep the icy hand of death, in the form of the neocon nuts, from trifling with Social Security until 2008 when a Democratic administration which will actually want to fix it rather than destroy it will be elected.
RGE
Mad Mikey, I'd like to have some of whatever you're smoking so that I can be at peace with all the fucked up shit in the world too. I want to feel like everything is okay...you seem to have some secret that keeps you from ever being even remotely concerned about injustice and content in the belief that your conservative politicians are looking out for your best interests. Good for you Mad Mikey. If you could send me some of that shit in the mail, I'd be ever so greatful.
Posted by: Maria at January 10, 2005 07:13 PMThat's the difference between conservatives and liberals. You summed it up.
I'll look out for my own best interests. I don't need politicians to. All I need them for is to protect the country and stay out of my way.
Liberals need baby sitters.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 10, 2005 07:19 PMYet another difference emerges between us Maria: you think that the government has money for any occasion and fully expect to be taken care of when you're old & gray whereas I would like to think that my SS benefits will be there for me, but will take measures in case they aren't, i.e. retirement funds.
It's kind of the classic ant vs. grasshopper situation
Social Security was great when it was created 70 years ago, but here in the 21st century it's out-dated.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at January 10, 2005 07:35 PMMad Mikey, I'm sorry but you are seriously smoking some crack or something.
you think that the government has money for any occasion and fully expect to be taken care of when you're old & gray...
dum du dum dum dum. Do I think the government has money for ANY occasion? No. But with Bush as president, it sure does seem like we have money for every damn occasion he fancies - big wars - big tax cuts, except the occasion to take care of the elderly or do right by Americans. No. I expect the government to have MY MONEY when I'm old, as it has been PROMISED to me. If you are totally okay with paying LOTS OF MONEY into something that you are never going to reap the benefits of later on, then my friend, you are a fucking chump.
Me? If I pay $400 every month into something, it better be justified somehow. The entire concept of SS is that it WILL be there for you. That's why it's CALLED "security." It's not outdated at all. People get social security checks every day and they're damn glad about it. That's THEIR MONEY.
If you're okay about having politicians plunder our security reserve to pay for tax cuts for THEIR friends, and force us to pay THEIR friends to hold on to and invest OUR money, keep poppin those happy pills dude, but I'm not biting.
I expect to get what I and every other working American pays for.
Posted by: Maria at January 10, 2005 07:48 PMYou obviously, as I stated before and you ignored (must be still reeling from the schooling I gave you a few posts down), you obviously don't understand the SS system. Your money isn't safely held in the treasury. It's going to the people collecting today.
I don't know exact numbers and aren't going to bother looking them up unless you start crying about it, so these are "rough" estimates. When SS was started, there were about 16 people paying SS tax for every person collecting. Today, even after the SS tax has risen dramaticly, there is less than 4. By the time we collect, it is estimated to be about 2.
So, while there may not be an urgent problem now, and maybe not even for you and I, there surely will be in the future. People are just living longer. It's not anyone's fault. It's not people spending the money. It's just the number of collectors is growing faster than the number of payers. The system is flawed.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 10, 2005 07:57 PMIf we have to, in order to keep it solvent, pay Social Security from general revenue, so be it.
Let's first consider raising the payroll tax so that it applies to the entire payroll. There would be no increased administrative costs and no increased risk as there would be with Bush's idiotic plan under which we would certainly find more old folks on welfare than there are now.
Anyone who can't see it's Republican revenge on FDR is the one who has no understanding of history.
RGE
Anyone who can't see it's Republican revenge on FDR is the one who has no understanding of history.
HAHAHAHAHA! Holy idiotic statements, Batman.
Subsidize SS from "general revenue"? Increase the payroll tax again? Don't you understand basic math?
When the system was designed, there were 16 people paying in for every person collecting. The times have changed. The math doesn't work anymore. We need a new system.
If your argument was Bush's plan is the wrong one, fine, that's a discussion worth having. Present other solutions. That isn't the case, though. You're suggesting we just keep dumping money into a broken system.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 10, 2005 08:19 PMThe obvious conclusion is that if everyone was to decide whether to reform Social Security and have it apply to them or stick with the old system, Maria is shaking in her pumps that she'll be in the minority of people who will eventually be cracking open a can of Alpo to stretch her benefits. The rest of us will be eating like human beings.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at January 11, 2005 12:14 AMBah. Gordon made a valid point last night, but she deleted that, too.
Posted by: Geoffrey at January 11, 2005 09:39 AMI imagine these dogs have been eating Alpo their whole lives, assuming their masters deem them worthy of that caliber of feed. I'm proud to say that I get my four food groups on a daily basis, with a big serving of nonsense and vitriol bestowed by my testosterone drunk, republican readers, on the side for good measure. Blah. You creeps leave a nasty taste in my mouth.
The only comments that have been deleted are those that carry nothing useful other than the intention to harm and degrade the discussion. I have no obligation to tolerate or accomodate anyone else's bullshit or surly ignorance.
You swine visit my blog for no purpose other than to inflict abuse. Because that is the kind of people that you are. Nothing constructive. Just beating on the chest and trying to find new ways to inflict pain on others. It reveals how pointless and shitty your very existence turns out to be.
Posted by: Maria at January 11, 2005 10:07 AM