Social Security Suicide: Loony and Bizarre

[Guest guest]

m

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:51:27 -0500

 

Subject:[Air_America_Radio] Social Security Suicide: Loony and Bizarre

 

SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND GET THE TRUTH OUT!

 

Even send it to your Congress people to let them know that we know the

truth! Phone in radio and live TV talk shows and use this as your script

to read from!

 

No matter how you do it EDUCATE THE PEOPLE EN MASS!!!!

 

..... ARTICLE ....

 

Published on Thursday, December 16, 2004 by the Boulder Daily Camera

Social Security Suicide: Loony and Bizarre

by Molly Ivins

 

Relatively recent writings on Social Security convince me of two things.

One is that we should be looking for maximum skepticism in our sources on

this subject. And the second is that anybody who starts with dismissive,

condescending and absolutist views isn't worth reading or listening to on

this subject.

 

 

There's a lot of fake objectivity out there, too. I personally think the

Bush proposal for privatizing Social Security is loony, radical and

unnecessary, but that's not an argument, it's a conclusion. It's the

people who aren't willing to make the case that you have to watch out

for.

 

Also, beware hidden assumptions — as in, " Everybody knows Social Security

is (a) in trouble, (b) bankrupt or © will expire next week. " In fact,

" everybody knows " very little on this subject because the arguments about

the system's future are built on complex, long-term economic models that

can easily be thrown off by

a single year. And if there's one thing the economy does with some

regularity, it is confound expert predictions.

 

A second problem is that reporters of all kinds and stripes are

notoriously weak on math. The Nation's Calvin Trillin says his trouble

stems from his failure to convince his math teachers that many of his

answers were meant in an ironic sense.

 

This debate is landmined with Phony Fun Facts. One notorious scare tactic

is to note that when Social Security began, there were 42 workers for

each retiree. Now, there are three workers per retiree. And in 25 years,

there will be only two. Ergo, we're doomed. Actually, at the

" frightening " current rate of three workers per retiree, the system is

producing a surplus and being skimmed to finance the rest of the federal

budget. Alas, Al Gore's famous " lockbox " got lost.

 

Q: Can we at least agree that we have a problem? A: No.

 

The argument in favor of " no " has two parts. One involves the incredible

shrinking doom date. As Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly points out, the

Social Security trustees, always operating on a properly gloomy forecast,

have been predicting disaster for the system for years, but the projected

point at which it will go bust

keeps moving.

 

In 1994, the system was supposed to go bust in 2029, a mere 35 years from

the date of prediction. Now, it's supposed to go bust in 2042, 38 years

down the road.

 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, using a more realistic

model, the trust fund will run out in 2052, and even then it will cover

81 percent of the promised benefits. To fully fund this shortfall would

require additional revenue of 0.54 percent of GDP, less than we are

currently spending in Iraq. Or, as Paul Krugman noted in The New York

Times, about one quarter of the revenue lost

each year by President Bush's tax cuts, " roughly equal to the fraction of

those cuts that goes to people with incomes of $500,000 a year. "

 

The second argument involves the motives of those who are arguing for

privatization. If there is a problem with Social Security, the obvious

solution would be to raise taxes, cut benefits or some combination of

both. Of course, I'm in favor of cutting benefits to the wealthy — Ross

Perot doesn't need the payout.

 

Or, we could have a peppy discussion of how to raise what kind of taxes,

if necessary — especially since the tax as it is structured is a terrible

burden on the poor and middle class. It actually cuts OFF at $87,900 a

year.

 

But that's not the Bush scheme here. The Bushies don't want to mend it,

they want to end it. This is not some leftist conspiracy theory:

 

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has been open about it for

years. What we have here is a happy convergence of ideology (the Market

Can Solve All Problems) and greed. The greed is from the financial

industry, which stands to pick up an incalculable sum in profits — and,

of course, the financial industry contributes generously to Guess Who.

Just the Bush plan of partial privatization

would cost about $1.5 trillion in transition costs over 10 years, and

Bush wants to borrow that money.

 

The White House is gearing up to launch a giant public-relations

campaign, just as it did with the campaign to sell us on the Iraq war,

with a lot of phony information to convince us all this lunacy is good

for us. Social Security is of particular concern to women, since we live

longer and have fewer earnings to rely on in retirement.

 

It's kind of hard not to be stunned by the irresponsibility of this

scheme. To just blithely borrow the money to destroy a successful social

program is, well, loony, bizarre and irresponsible.

 

Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist.

[Guest guest]

Alls we have to do to make Social security solvent is to get the federal

government to repay with interest what they took from it! Walt

-

califpacific

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 1:21 AM

Social Security Suicide: Loony and

Bizarre

 

 

 

 

m

Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:51:27 -0500

 

Subject:[Air_America_Radio] Social Security Suicide: Loony and Bizarre

 

SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND GET THE TRUTH OUT!

 

Even send it to your Congress people to let them know that we know the

truth! Phone in radio and live TV talk shows and use this as your script

to read from!

 

No matter how you do it EDUCATE THE PEOPLE EN MASS!!!!

 

.... ARTICLE ....

 

Published on Thursday, December 16, 2004 by the Boulder Daily Camera

Social Security Suicide: Loony and Bizarre

by Molly Ivins

 

Relatively recent writings on Social Security convince me of two things.

One is that we should be looking for maximum skepticism in our sources on

this subject. And the second is that anybody who starts with dismissive,

condescending and absolutist views isn't worth reading or listening to on

this subject.

 

 

There's a lot of fake objectivity out there, too. I personally think the

Bush proposal for privatizing Social Security is loony, radical and

unnecessary, but that's not an argument, it's a conclusion. It's the

people who aren't willing to make the case that you have to watch out

for.

 

Also, beware hidden assumptions - as in, " Everybody knows Social Security

is (a) in trouble, (b) bankrupt or © will expire next week. " In fact,

" everybody knows " very little on this subject because the arguments about

the system's future are built on complex, long-term economic models that

can easily be thrown off by

a single year. And if there's one thing the economy does with some

regularity, it is confound expert predictions.