The Nation: Because it Works

[primavera]

Because it Works
by Robert Scheer
The Nation
Posted March 8, 2005

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.

<snip>

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.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050321&s=scheer0308

[Warpy]

1. They must've been reading this board and my posts

The problem with social security is that it's a socialist program that WORKS.

[GoCubsGo05]

7. It doesn't work in its current form....

....or its original form. It needs to be changed. Everyone agrees. It's how to change it that is being debated. The article lists a few ideas. (Raising/eliminating the wage base limit, etc.) What I don't understand is why we Democrats are against private accounts. We complain, complain, complain that poor people get the shaft. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Social Security tax! What the poor are forced to give up and what they get in return should make every one of us wretch. I am not saying pirvate accounts will save social security long term. Nobody in their right mind would say that. But I also don't think anyone in their right mind would say the rate of return on Social Security has outperformed the rate of return froma basic index fund over any 10,20,30,40,50 year period. Facts are facts. Why should only people with good benefits get into a 401K or an IRA? Why can't the poorest among us have the same opportunity? If the government is going to force them to give up 7.65% of their income week in and week out, shouldn't they let them get the most bang for their buck?

I just don't get the party opposition. Private accounts benefit the poor the most.

[Atman]

8. Rate of Return? It's an insurance policy, not an investment!

This is the part of the argument that really irks me. This program is not supposed to supply you with a specific "rate of return." It is a shared risk pool. Everyone pays in so that everyone is covered. If you want to invest some of your money, Cubs, go for it! No one is stopping you. But stop looking at SS as an ivestment vehicle. It was never, ever intended to be any such thing!

[sandnsea]

9. Edwards proposed savings accounts

For low income families, $1 for $1 match. If Republicans are soooo interested in creating an investment vehicle for working folks, why don't they? Not complicated.

They are attaching it to social security to destroy social security, which is a GUARANTEED benefit against the inability to work. Their goal is to tear apart the cooperative safety nets that have been put in place because they believe anything that isn't free market private sector is communist and evil.

[Martin Eden]

12. It works just fine.

First of all, Atman is right -- Social Security isn't an investment scheme, it's an insurance policy, and its record at elevating the elderly from poverty proves its success. It also benefits survivors and the disabled, which most definitely can't be discussed in the context of "rate of return."

But even if you're thinking in terms of investment, private accounts are a bad deal because the end result is the destruction of Social Security and the guarantee it provides. Individuals would have the option of diverting two thirds of their SS payroll taxes into private accounts, which would bring about the system's insolvency much faster. When the collapse becomes apparent, everyone would choose private accounts and would see zilch from the third that still goes into SS, which might be just enough to cover some of the survivors and disabled.

Don't think you'll get such a good rate from that two thirds in your account, either. There are winners and losers, fees, corporate malfaesance, and a good chance that the bottom will drop out of the dollar if deficits & trade imbalance continues.

The biggest problem with Social Security are the huge deficits that Bush has been running, and private accounts make it worse. Bush promised no change in benefits for those 55 & older, but when the taxes for providing those beneifts are diverted away from the system, where do the funds come from? Either draconian cuts, or another trillion or two added to the debt burden being heaped upon the younger generation who will allegedly benefit from this scheme.

Privatization isn't a solution for providing working Americans with a more secure future; it's Bush's gambit to destroy the last vestige of the New Deal at any cost -- a cost that all but the wealthy will bear.

[bif]

2. Excellent article

I think the author hit the nail on the head:

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.

[expatriot]

4. I agree... it rocks. nt

[expatriot]

3. I am working on an essay on this matter and my final paragraph could have

been the final paragraph for this one.
--------------------------------------------------
I am not the first to throw down this gauntlet nor will I be the last, but it is certain that this administration and the corporate oligarchy of greed it represents have declared total war upon the workers of this nation. We, as progressives who cherish peace and the rule of law, must persist tirelessly in fighting the good fight to end their tyranny of greed before, God forbid, the widening insurmountable disparity calls forth more radical elements.

[expatriot]

5. Recommend this one, people....

[pnorman]

6. This gave me a good phrase:

"Chicken-Hawk morphing into Chicken Little." (and variants).

pnorman

[bettyellen]

10. kicking this

[Strawman]

11. This is what the Republicans don't realize

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

Ultimately, the middle class expects to have some kind of safety net in place during their retirement. The wealthy can only take away so much before the pendulum will swing back the other way, and when it does it will swing hard. You would think that they would have the foresight to stand pat with the status quo where they have it about as good as it can get for them without prompting a backlash. They are really overreaching on this. Their brand of capitalism might just kill capitalism if they keep it up.