Because It Works

[Nbadan]

The problem with Social Security is that it isn't broken, which is precisely why the President is so eager to destroy it. It is the continued success, rather than failure, of the program that irks him.

As George W. Bush continues to flail at Social Security, even in the face of increased public opposition, you have to wonder: "Why?"

The most successful safety net program in human history is currently sitting on $1.7 trillion in reserve funds and faces a possible shortfall decades from now, which minor corrections to the program could prevent. Yet our President has been running around like Chicken Little telling us the sky is falling.

So, what gives? Is this like a kid at a party whacking a piñata in the hope that wondrous prizes will suddenly pour out--such as millions in fees for Wall Street and campaign donations for Republicans? Or is this just a fit of rage at a target that was heretofore an unquestioned triumph of liberal society? Perhaps it is just a devilishly clever distraction from the larger failures of the administration's woeful domestic policies, like the burgeoning debt and stagnant wages.

But as unpalatable as those explanations may be, I believe the real answer is much more disturbing: The country is being led by a group of ideologues who fanatically reject the notion that government has a role to play in ameliorating the harshest aspects of capitalism.

For them, the mantra is "privatization," in any and all corners of society.

In fact, what the President advocates, and what powerful Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan seems to be endorsing, is a return to the purist free-market fantasy that characterized the latter's outlook as a young libertarian academic.

How else to explain the frantic attacks on a system that is clearly working quite well precisely because it does redistribute income over the span of one's life?

The elderly were once the poorest sector of the society and now, thanks to Social Security and Medicare, they may be among the most secure. For the average American over 65, Social Security makes up nearly 40 percent of income, according to AARP, formerly known as the American Assn. of Retired Persons, and for about 20 percent it is their only income. These facts alone ought to appeal to younger taxpayers who would otherwise bear an often crushing personal responsibility for their parents' retirement.

In Social Security's extremely cautious estimates, it would only begin seeing actual shortfalls in 2042, and yet this can be prevented in many ways. One, now supported by Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, would raise the retirement age by a year. Another, suggested by AARP, would raise the $90,000 cap on income subject to the Social Security tax to around $140,000.

Let me go one better to suggest the heresy of removing the cap, without increasing benefits for top earners. Make all income, even that of those making millions of dollars a year, subject to Social Security taxes, thereby bringing more money into the system.

Such a proposal is, of course, anathema to most post-Reagan Republicans, who believe the government can do nothing right, all taxes are bad and that although evolution is a crock, Darwinian selection is a grand old system for society.

This ideological hostility to progressive taxation and income redistributions is the real issue behind the assault on Social Security, and it deserves to be debated head-on.

Knowing that the program is far too popular to be axed completely, hyper-conservatives hatched this idea of diverting its funds into the stock market. They hate the idea of all that money flowing down the food chain instead of up--lower-income workers get a higher rate of return on their Social Security taxes than those better off.

Social Security-funded private accounts, on the other hand, would not redistribute income; they simply would extend into retirement the existing decades-old pattern of the rich getting richer, the poor doing worse and the middle class eroding.

Let's be blunt: A progressive tax is a good thing for the very reason libertarian and conservative ideologues think it is bad: It redistributes income in a way that ever so slightly makes us more equal and minimally protects the weakest among us.

Anybody who wants a democratic society cannot accept excessively uneven income distribution. As Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed, the rule of the majority must be rooted in a thriving middle class.

The alternative? Class warfare and socioeconomic chaos--exactly what we faced during the Depression when Social Security was introduced to save capitalism.

by Robert Scheer, The Nation

[Nbadan]

A Republican Senator has a rare moment of clarity...

Conservatives in and out of Congress say President Bush has been taking bad advice on Social Security, hurting his chance to win private investment accounts for younger workers.

Mr. Bush has refused to rule out measures that would contradict his campaign promises on Social Security, putting himself in what conservatives say is a weak negotiating position with Democrats.

"The president would do well to put markers down as to what we are going to do and what we are not going to do on Social Security taxes and benefits," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican.

A senior Republican senator said, "The message coming out of the White House is that we'll fix Social Security by raising your taxes and cutting your retirement benefits and, to get something passed, we'll forget about the personal retirement accounts we promised."

The senator said that is like telling voters, "Never vote for Republicans again -- we lie."

Washington Times

[Clandestino]

the rest of the story:

A senior Republican senator said, "The message coming out of the White House is that we'll fix Social Security by raising your taxes and cutting your retirement benefits and, to get something passed, we'll forget about the personal retirement accounts we promised."
The senator said that is like telling voters, "Never vote for Republicans again -- we lie."

Conservatives complain that, in order to appear open to compromise with Democrats, the administration has refused to rule out raising the cap on payroll taxes, cutting retirement benefits or eliminating private investment accounts.
Mr. Pence said House conservatives adamantly oppose those options. "We're prepared to support government's borrowing money to get the fundamental reform of personal accounts. It's like refinancing your mortgage: You pay points upfront but save a lot more in the long run," he said.
"If we take personal retirement accounts off the table, as Democrats want, we are simply in the old tax-increase, benefits-cut trap," Mr. Pence said.
The White House has garbled its message, said Peter Ferrara, who was a policy adviser in the Reagan administration.
"I can't understand why this White House staff sends the president out to sell personal savings accounts for Social Security with the message that they don't really solve the problem," Mr. Ferrara said. "Is it any wonder then that the more the president talks about personal accounts, the lower they sink in the polls?"
The senior Republican senator said privately that the only way to avoid a bad deal on Social Security may be "to pull the trigger on the nuclear option."
This, he said, would mean changing Senate rules to force an end to Democratic filibusters and a vote on Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. The Democrats likely would retaliate by filibustering all Republican bills. Republicans then could blame Democrats for blocking Social Security reform.
Others say it is too early to abandon hope of passing the kind of Social Security plan that conservatives support.
"Once Americans understand the choices they have -- that they will own their personal retirement accounts and will be able to pass them on to loved ones, they will flock to personal retirement accounts," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.