A Privatizing President

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19889/

 

A second Bush presidency would usher in an age of privatization of our

federal social programs.

 

 

A Privatizing President

 

By E. J. Dionne, Washington Monthly. Posted September 15, 2004.

 

What would President Bush do with a second term? Let's take him at his

word. Bush is engaged in a bold (and, if you disagree with him,

dangerous) project to dismantle the social advances of the New and

Fair Deals, the New Frontier, and the Great Society. He wants to throw

more risk onto the individual, free corporations and employers from

regulations that protect employees and consumers, and reduce

government's role in providing retirement security. He would further

cut taxes on the savings and investments of the well-off and weaken

the individual's right to sue corporations and heath-care providers

for malfeasance.

 

Or, to put this same list in Bush's terms, he wants to " empower "

individuals, end " junk law suits, " expand " incentives " for investment,

give the elderly " ownership of their retirement, " and free businesses

from " unnecessary " regulation. A second Bush term would be a big deal,

if not necessarily a fair one.

 

He proposed partially privatizing Social Security in the 2000 election

campaign, and has stuck to his position. He'd take a couple of

percentage points off payroll taxes that now go the Social Security

fund and allow individuals to invest the amount in private accounts.

The transition costs of the plan – because Bush has also promised to

allow those at or near retirement to stay in the current system –

would amount to about $1 trillion. Retirement costs would have to be

covered, even as revenues were cut by the privatization scheme. It's

not clear where Bush would find the money, though he could just add to

the deficit.

 

On Medicare, Bush would like to replace the current system that

guarantees all seniors the medical treatment they need with fixed

payments to subsidize the purchase of private insurance. He has not

quite said this explicitly, but this is the direction in which his

rhetoric (and his conservative allies) have pointed. For the wealthy,

this program would be fine; they could supplement government subsidies

with their own funds. The non-wealthy would be stuck with a guaranteed

minimum.

 

This would be sold as " choice. " But under the current system, seniors

actually can choose their doctors and treatments. The only " choice "

guaranteed by partial privatization of Medicare would be among

health-insurance companies or HMOs. Which is the " choice " that

health-care consumers really want?

 

The cuts in taxes on savings and investment Bush is likely to seek

would mark yet another step in transferring taxation from wealth to

work – from investors to wage earners. An ever larger share of

government revenue would come from payroll and income taxes. Bush sees

this as encouraging investment.

 

The president is also talking about " flex time. " It sounds good.

Individuals could cash in overtime pay for time off. But this is also

a way to weaken laws guaranteeing that those who work more than 40

hours a week get paid time and a half for their extra hours. That's

why employers love the flex time idea. Yes, there may be useful ways

to encourage more flexibility in the time/money tradeoff. But can one

count on an administration that dislikes regulation of business to

guarantee that workers would not be pressured to give up the overtime

pay they are now entitled to?

 

Bush will present these ideas under the appealing slogan of an

" ownership society. " An ownership society is a great idea. It's the

very thing that unions sought: Pushing up wages allowed individuals to

own their own homes and send their kids to college. The GI Bill,

student loans, Pell Grants, Head Start, minimum wages – all were and

are designed to help individuals gain the skills, income, and power to

become self-sufficient owners. Reducing government help and protection

for wage earners and senior citizens is likely to retard the goal of

an " ownership society. "

 

Would the planks of this Bush program be passed? As long as Democrats

hold at least 45 seats in the Senate – they are likely to win at least

several more than that, perhaps even a majority – much of this Bush

agenda will be stillborn. But you never know. Enough Democrats caved

in to Bush on his tax-cut proposals to make them law. Maybe the

privatized world Bush seeks could happen if Democrats are intimidated

by his re-election. That makes the outcome of November's presidential

vote very important.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/19889/