ALERT: Bush slipped Social Security privatization into his budget proposal

[Guest guest]

" Virginia Metze " <vmetze

Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:21:19 -0600

ALERT: Bush slipped Social Security privatization into his

budget proposal

 

Real life, complete with an occasional health emergency, seems to be

interfering more than I like with my schedule. Hopefully tomorrow a

new list will go out. Until then, this seems really important to a

lot of people in the country.

 

 

The Green-Dog Democrat Alert*

" Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the

voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the

path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of

terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives

in fear. "

Harry S. Truman

 

 

 

February 8, 2006

 

Bush slipped Social Security privatization into his budget proposal

 

Hello from the Green Dog --

 

Here are some observations and a question based upon information in

the February 8, 2006 Newsweek article below:

 

From the article --

 

" His (Bush's SS privatization) plan would let people set up private

accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of

Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years. "

 

Observation/Question --

 

It would seem safe to assume that the $700 billion would be money lost

to meeting obligations to current retirees (who are paid from current

SS contributions). Would that result in those retirees -- who would

not have private accounts -- receiving lower benefits to help pay for

those private accounts?

 

From the article --

 

" (In his SOTU address) he seemed to be kicking the Social Security

problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when

he asked Congress 'to join me in creating a commission to examine the

full impact of baby-boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and

Medicaid,' adding that the commission would be bipartisan 'and offer

bipartisan solutions.'

 

" But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to

deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own

privatization proposals into his proposed budget. "

 

Observation --

 

It appears that George Bush is still playing shell games with the

American public and still determined to meet the political right's

objective of overturning Social Security instead of fixing it.

 

From the article --

 

" It's not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social

Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set

up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work. "

 

Observation --

 

Last year it was determined that privatization won't fix the problem

that Social Security faces way down the road. And it still won't. (Be

sure to read the Green Dogs on Social Security that are linked in the

postscript that follows the article below.)

 

Please be sure to delete the to/from/date block when you forward this

to EVERYONE in your e-mail address book. This ALERT is for everyone,

including those who may not care too much for it. They need to read

it, anyway. Thanks.

 

The Green-Dog Democrat

 

 

 

Slight of hand

Bush buried detailed Social Security privatization proposals in his

budget.

Can the surprise move jump-start bipartisan reform?

 

By Allan Sloan

Newsweek

February 8, 2006

 

IF YOU READ enough numbers, you never know what you'll find. Take

George Bush and private Social Security accounts.

 

Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys

of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and

never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no

fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization

plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.

 

His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and

would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to

pay for them over the first seven years.

 

If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You're not alone.

Bush didn't pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the

Union Message last week.

 

First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying

that " Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social

Security, " even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific

legislation.

 

Bipartisan Solutions?

 

Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years

down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress " to

join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of

baby-boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, "

adding that the commission would be bipartisan " and offer bipartisan

solutions. "

 

But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal

with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own

privatization proposals into his proposed budget.

 

" The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social

Security modernization, " White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in

an interview Tuesday, but " the president still cares deeply about

this. " Duffy asserted that Bush would have been remiss not to include

in the budget the cost of something that he feels so strongly about,

and he seemed surprised at my surprise that Social Security

privatization had been written into the budget without any advance

fanfare.

 

Duffy said privatization costs were included in the midyear budget

update that the Office of Management and Budget released last July 30,

so it was logical for them to be in the 2007 budget proposals. But I

sure didn't see this coming—and I wonder how many people outside of

the White House did.

 

Nevertheless, it's here. Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk

of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the

budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in

fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533

billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of

$712.144 billion.

 

In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to

divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into

what Bush called " voluntary private accounts. " The maximum

contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise

by $100 a year through 2016.

 

Size of Reductions?

 

It's not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social

Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set

up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work.

 

Bush also wants to change the way Social Security benefits are

calculated for most people by adopting so-called progressive indexing.

Lower-income people would continue to have their Social Security

benefits tied to wages, but the benefits paid to higher-paid people

would be tied to inflation.

 

Wages have typically risen 1.1 percent a year more than inflation, so

over time, that disparity would give lower-paid and higher-paid people

essentially the same benefit. However, higher-paid workers would be

paying substantially more into the system than lower-paid people would.

 

This means that although progressive indexing is an attractive idea

from a social-justice point of view, it would reduce Social Security's

political support by making it seem more like welfare than an earned

benefit.

 

Bush is right, of course, when he says in his budget proposal that

Social Security in its current form is unsustainable. But there are

plenty of ways to fix it besides offering private accounts as a

substitute for part of the basic benefit.

 

Bush's 2001 Social Security commission had members of both parties,

but they had to agree in advance to support private accounts. Their

report, which had some interesting ideas, went essentially nowhere.

 

What remains to be seen is whether this time around Bush follows

through on forming a bipartisan commission and whether he can get

credible Democrats to join it. Dropping numbers onto your opponents is

a great way to stick your finger in their eye. But will it get the

Social Security job done? That, my friends, is a whole other story.

 

Sloan is NEWSWEEK's Wall Street editor. His e-mail is sloan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11235990/site/newsweek/

 

 

 

Postscript

 

The Green Dog has visited the Social Security issue in past " issues "

that contain many articles and commentaries and links to other

articles and important data. They are posted at

http://www.eurolegal.org/greendogdem/greendogdem.htm --

 

October 4, 2004 -- REDUX: On Social Security, Al Gore was right

December 8, 2004 -- A faux crisis and Social (In)Security for Baby

Boomers and others

December 22, 2004 -- More on Bush's and the " conservatives' " Social

(In)Security

January 9, 2005 -- Are greed and ideology behind the bum's rush on

Social Security " reform " ?

January 10, 2005 -- Addendum to " Are greed and ideology behind the

bum's rush on Social Security 'reform'? "

January 22, 2005 -- Lies, damned lies, and anti-truths about SS, WMDs

& ETC.

January 30, 2005 -- Bush's Social Security: Reduced benefits, unfixed

shortfall

February 17, 2005 -- Them Social Security numbers just don't cipher

right, George

February 28, 2005 -- American moral, civic, civil, and religious

values and Social Security

April 26, 2005 -- Britain's bloody " social security " mess

May 31, 2005 -- Social Security plan that is financially devastating

for women (and kids)

 

 

Past " issues " of The Green-Dog Democrat from June, 2004 through recent

are posted at the highly informative website Eurolegal Services at

http://www.eurolegal.org/greendogdem/greendogdem.htm. From the site's

home page, one can explore much information posted on British,

American, and other international politics and public affairs;

international terrorism; and more.

 

PAY ATTENTION: A Eurolegal Services page has many articles and

literally dozens of links to thoughtful articles, essays, and

commentaries on the constitutional crisis that the U.S. faces because

of Bush's " imperial-presidency " actions and plans -- and on the

growing opinion that Bush's imperiousness is impeachable. It's at

http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/prerogativeabuse.htm.

 

 

______________________________\

______________________________

 

 

*The Green-Dog Democrat

 

This modest op-ed newsletter is sent by e-mail at no charge to those

who request it. Each of the average two or three newsletters weekly

is designed to call attention to well-written and -presented ideas and

information that in combination present a moderately progressive point

of view about a current topic or issue. Recipients are asked to

forward it to other people to increase the reach and influence of its

contents.

 

WHAT IS A GREEN-DOG DEMOCRAT? This kind of Green-Dog Democrat is a

cross between a yellow-dog Democrat and a blue-dog Democrat -- a

moderately progressive, thinking Democrat who is liberal on some

issues, moderate on some, a little conservative on some, ambivalent on

some. This Green-Dog Democrat is a retired public relations/marketing

communications practitioner who lives in Kentucky. He is a product of

small-town western Kentucky and the extended-family influence of kind,

honest, God-fearing, hard-working farmers, timber broker, coal miners,

church custodian, store clerks, oil-field-equipment supplier,

carpenter, grocers, courthouse lawyers, auto mechanic, career soldier,

school teachers, factory worker, watchmaker and jeweler, and

housewives, some of whom worked outside the home, some of whom didn't.

Most were Democrats of varying stripe, a few were liberal/moderate

Republicans. Most liked to go fishing, and most have gone to their

final reward.

 

This Green-Dog Democrat is a grandfather, former U.S. Navy lieutenant

-- Vietnam era -- and an admirer of (random order) Truman, Ike,

Jefferson, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Lincoln,

Hubert Humphrey, John Sherman Cooper, Henry Clay, Adlai Stevenson, and

Nelson Rockefeller. He thinks that Sam Ervin, Martin Luther King Jr.,

Will Rogers, Edward R. Murrow, Red Skelton, Mark Twain, and Henry

Burgess (

http://www.wwiimemorial.com/default.asp?page=registry.asp & subpage=search

-- type in Burgess, Henry; choose Kentucky ) were great American

heroes. He is secretly (not to upset his wife of 40-plus years) in

love with syndicated columnists Molly Ivins, Georgie Anne Geyer,

Arianna Huffington, and Maureen Dowd and web-site commentator Sheila

Samples, all of whom are splendid writers and wonderful thinkers.

 

As a thinking American, this Green-Dog Democrat has real, serious

problems with the neo-John Birchers, neo-Gilded Agers, neo-Robber

Barons, and new-world-order ideologues who occupy the White House and

much of Congress as heirs to the Newt Gingrich revolution. He is

absolutely certain that George W. Bush is not one IQ point smarter

than he was before September 11, 2001. ( " In America anyone can become

president. That's just one of the risks you take. " -- Adlai Stevenson)

 

NOTE: Another kind of Green Dog is what is also called a Green

Democrat, a deeply committed environmentalist. One of them is the

California-based political- and environmental-campaign

communicator/consultant, who calls herself a Green Dog Democrat and

whose professional services are offered at

http://www.bapd.org/ggr-ns-1.html.

 

NOTE SOME MORE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the

material in this newsletter is distributed without profit or

recompense to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the

included information for research and educational purposes. The

Green-Dog Democrat newsletter and The Green-Dog Democrat personified

have no affiliation whatsoever with the originators of the articles or

other information in this newsletter nor are The Green-Dog Democrat

newsletter or The Green-Dog Democrat personified endorsed or sponsored

by the originators.

______________________________\

______________________________