A Bloody Mess (Social Security Privatization)

[complain jane]

A Bloody Mess
By Norma Cohen
Web Exclusive: 01.11.05

A conservative government sweeps to power for a second term. It views its victory as a mandate to slash the role of the state. In its first term, this policy objective was met by cutting taxes for the wealthy. Its top priority for its second term is tackling what it views as an enduring vestige of socialism: its system of social insurance for the elderly. Declaring the current program unaffordable in 50 years’ time, the administration proposes the privatization of a portion of old-age benefits. In exchange for giving up some future benefits, workers would get a tax rebate to put into an investment account to save for their own retirement.

George W. Bush’s America in 2005? Think again. The year was 1984, the nation was Britain, the government was that of Margaret Thatcher -- and the results have been a disaster that America is about to emulate.

<snip>

Source

[BrklynLiberal]

1. We have to stop using the word "privatization" when referring to what the

Repukes are doing to Social Security. It is adapting their vocabulary, and allowing them to "frame the debate"!
They are DISMANTLING Social Security and that is how we have to refer to what they are doing when we discuss it.

[jaysunb]

2. You are Right !

George Lakoff would be proud of you. :toast:

[fedsron2us]

5. "Privitization" was the Conservative mantra

throughout the UK in the 1980's. Here in Britain the word has become so tainted that now most people use it as a term of abuse or ridicule. Even those who continue to support this failed idealogy now try to replace it with euphemisms such as 'private-public partnership' etc. British pensions policy has been such a disaster that even the private insurers who benefited from the orginal legislation recognise that a major rethink is required. Meanwhile, Blair's government has had to introduce a ridiculously costly and complex system of 'pensioners credits' to prevent the elderly poor dying of cold and hunger.

On edit - In passing Americans might be interested to know that despite the reduction in the value of the state pension British workers pay a higher percentage of their income in National Insurance Contributions now than they did in 1979 when the law was changed. The moral of the story is that you will get less but may still end up paying higher taxes.

[MissMarple]

3. So, Social Security has served the American people well for over 70 years.

The radical right is doing this on purpose and they will destabilize the American economy as they impoverish more and more Americans. Like privatizing public utilities and other essential services the American corporatists are leading us into the Hobbsian nightmare that British conservatives are trying to run away from.

" And so, at the exact moment that America contemplates replicating this disaster, many in Britain -- some conservatives included -- are looking more and more kindly on American Social Security as a model for reform. The National Association of Pension Funds, a group of employers who sponsor the nation’s largest schemes, is urging government not to expect the private sector to shoulder the burden of keeping the nation’s elderly from poverty. Chief executive Christine Farnish notes that it’s “actually cheaper for the state to carry the risk,” adding that in looking for a system that offers the best combination of modest guaranteed retirement benefits delivered at low cost, the U.S. Social Security program seems the best model. “It doesn’t have to make a profit, and it delivers efficiencies of scale that most companies would die for,” she says."

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. And note the bio of the author

"Norma Cohen is senior corporate reporter at the Financial Times and is currently responsible for coverage of pension issues. "

(a) She knows what she's talking about
(b) She's not a radical left winger. She reports for the pro-business Financial Times.

[0007]

6. ...

.

[reprehensor]

7. bump