Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why we will never see a public option and why Social Security and Medicare will be "privatized" too.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:20 PM
Original message
Why we will never see a public option and why Social Security and Medicare will be "privatized" too.
Straightforward article. Read it. And remember Peter Peterson, good friend of Robert Rubin and all his acolyte.



http://www.counterpunch.org/brown03022010.html

What Goes Around Comes Around

IMF-Style Austerity Comes to America

By ELLEN BROWN

When billionaires pledge a billion dollars to educate people to the evils of something, it is always good to peer closely at what they are up to. Hedge fund magnate Peter G. Peterson was formerly Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and head of the New York Federal Reserve. He is now senior chairman of Blackstone Group, which is in charge of dispersing government funds in the controversial AIG bailout, widely criticized as a government giveaway to banks. Peterson is also founder of the Peter Peterson Foundation, which has adopted the cause of imposing “fiscal responsibility” on Congress. He hired David M. Walker, former head of the Government Accounting Office, to spearhead a massive campaign to reduce the runaway federal debt, which the Peterson/Walker team blames on reckless government and consumer spending. The Foundation funded the movie “I.O.U.S.A.” to amass popular support for their cause, which largely revolves around dismantling Social Security and Medicare benefits as a way to cut costs and return to “fiscal responsibility.”

The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform has pushed heavily for action to stem the federal debt. Bills for a budget task force were sponsored in both houses of Congress. The Senate bill was narrowly defeated, and the House bill was tabled; but that was not the end of it. In Obama’s State of the Union speech on January 27, he said he would be creating a presidential budget task force by executive order to address the federal government’s deficit and debt crisis, and that the task force would be modeled on the bills Congress had failed to pass. If Congress would not impose “fiscal responsibility” on the nation, the President would. “It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink,” he said. The Executive Order was signed on February 17.
....

That raises the question, are the advocates of “fiscal responsibility” merely misguided? Or are they up to something more devious? The President’s Executive Order is vague about the sorts of budget decisions being entertained, but we can get a sense of what is on the table by looking at the earlier agenda of Peterson’s Commission on Budget Reform. The Peterson/Walker plan would have slashed social security entitlements, at a time when Wall Street has destroyed the home equity and private retirement accounts of potential retirees. Worse, it would have increased the social security tax, disguised as a “mandatory savings tax.” This added tax would be automatically withdrawn from your paycheck and deposited to a “Guaranteed Retirement Account” managed by the Social Security Administration. Since the savings would be “mandatory,” you could not withdraw your money without stiff penalties; and rather than enjoying an earlier retirement paid out of your increased savings, a later retirement date was being called for. In the meantime, your “mandatory savings” would just be fattening the investment pool of the Wall Street bankers managing the funds...

...All of this puts “fiscal responsibility” in a different light. Rather than saving the future for our grandchildren, as the President himself seems to think it means, it appears to be a code word for delivering public monies into private hands and raising taxes on the already-squeezed middle class. In the parlance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), these are called “austerity measures,” and they are the sorts of things that people are taking to the streets in Greece, Iceland and Latvia to protest. Americans are not taking to the streets only because nobody has told us that is what is being planned.

We have been deluded into thinking that “fiscal responsibility” (read “austerity”) is something for our benefit, something we actually need in order to save the country from bankruptcy. In the massive campaign to educate us to the perils of the federal debt, we have been repeatedly warned that the debt is disastrously large; that when foreign lenders decide to pull the plug on it, the U.S. will have to declare bankruptcy; and that all this is the fault of the citizenry for borrowing and spending too much. We are admonished to tighten our belts and save more; and since we can’t seem to impose that discipline on ourselves, the government will have to do it for us with a “mandatory savings” plan. The American people, who are already suffering massive unemployment and cutbacks in government services, will have to sacrifice more and pay the piper more, just as in those debt-strapped countries forced into austerity measures by the IMF.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. K+R Very good article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Ownership Class has been pushing back since FDR reforms
The ruling elite have been waging an aggressive campaign against We, the Peons since the day FDR responded to the Left by instituting reforms.

The Left is now essentially dead in the US, so these rich fucks and their hired politicians believe they have nothing to fear.

:mad: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. If they try to eliminate SS there will be a revolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Maybe that's what all those airport scanners are for.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I agree ...the guys who vote it are out of there
the government had one obligation and that is social security

for its people



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. No there won't
They've been brainwashing people for at least the last decade, and you hear it all the time now:


"By the time I reach retirement age there won't BE any Social Security."


It's just a variation on the same old "The Rich get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer."

Tsk, tsk.

The ruling elite have managed to get US to spout THEIR propaganda!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Oh, that BS about SS not breing there when I retire has been around longer than I have and I'm 66!
I remember my BIL saying that 40 years ago & he's now 72. Sure there are a number of people who have managed to amass a lot of $$ during their life and don't GAS about SS because they don;t need it, but believe me, they are a very small minority! SS & medicare will be alive and well long after you & I are gone to the happoy huntung ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. It's not that it won't be around, it's that it will be privatized in this way:
"The Peterson/Walker plan would have slashed social security entitlements, at a time when Wall Street has destroyed the home equity and private retirement accounts of potential retirees. Worse, it would have increased the social security tax, disguised as a “mandatory savings tax.” This added tax would be automatically withdrawn from your paycheck and deposited to a “Guaranteed Retirement Account” managed by the Social Security Administration. Since the savings would be “mandatory,” you could not withdraw your money without stiff penalties; and rather than enjoying an earlier retirement paid out of your increased savings, a later retirement date was being called for. In the meantime, your “mandatory savings” would just be fattening the investment pool of the Wall Street bankers managing the funds."

They didn't get to do this before, but Peterson will keep pushing until it does happen.

And before you laugh it off, think: did you ever think you would see the Democrats try to push through a mandate for every individual to give their money to an insurance company, under penalty of fine or imprisonment? That's what privatizing government services means: mandates on people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
36. only if we let them do it. not good politics to start out assuming they'll win. tends to dissipate
Edited on Mon Mar-08-10 05:11 AM by Hannah Bell
troop strength.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
35. so did you bring his prediction up when he started collecting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ildem09 Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Dunno
The folks, that remember the early years of Roosevelt's dream are starting to die off en masse. The nuevo old will be those who came of age during RayGun the terrible reign of horror
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. Spot on! Rock Band Beatles Edition II: Revolution!
Edited on Sun Mar-07-10 06:01 PM by Oregone
Everyone will be glued to their big ass TVs watching their kids play Revolution on the Playstation.


The US isn't France. When the going gets tough, Americans just raise a white flag and run home from private industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
32. No there wont. And if there was a revolution, it will play directly into the hands of the
rulers. They would love nothing better than to declare martial law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jotsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. All the more reason to fight on a front they can't question.
The pursuit of equal justice through peaceful but pragmatic progressive pulse of a push. Vincent Bugliosi's book advises ordinary citizens to visit their local D.A. to prosecute the Bushkies with the murder of our soldiers who have died fighting in wars waged by design rather than necessary defense. With so many folks out of work, showing up in groups to make the case on a more than infrequent basis strikes me as manageable. It may not help but I would hope not hurt to find out.

From there, the flow of money to the machine must stop. Any perception of value in the dollar may be short lived, while that is not yet the case may be the only window of time to consider using it to make our point. Define your defiance through non compliance. I say send monopoly money to pay your bills, then insist when they inquire that your speculating, like Wall St. and you see that soon the difference between that and the real thing will be pretty much nil.

A bloodless coup is what can be had if we're cautious, compelling, courageous and above all committed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
38. If they try to eliminate SS..
.. I'll be on the front lines with more than one of 'em in my crosshairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. If I see you running up a huge credit card bill every month
And you've got it in your head that the people trying to make you balance your budget want you to suffer would you keep running up your credit cards just to tell them to screw off? I hope you see that isn't the answer.

The solution isn't to disregard the problem. It's to find better alternatives than what they offer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
37. you've accepted their definition of "the problem".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. Medicare is already privitized. CIGNA, AETNA, Palmetto and more
all have Medicare contracts with the federal government. They have to bid for contracts just like any other private entity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. It's still publicly funded.
Eventually those costs will be collected from the individual and not from Federal taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. I agree. I am for Medicare for all. I just don't get why insurance companies
are against it. It would mean all medicare contracts for different parts of the country would be opened up for private companies to bid on. There would still be private insurance for rich folks to get face lifts, tummy tucks and botox injections. Actually rich folks don't need insurance. Millionaires and Billionaires would come out better paying directly to a doctor or keeping a doctor on a retainer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Lower profit margins
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
14. How can you claim, with a straight-face, that private industry produces the best insurance structure
(just as free-enterprise and competition produces the best in every sector)

And then turn around and not claim that it will produce the best education and retirement system?

Seriously...how can you do it? Its almost incomprehensible to pretend you are an advocate of the free-market, to push private, free-market policy, and then to let education, social security, and health insurance remain even partially mixed-market.

How can you go on about how the government shouldn't be between you and ANYTHING, and let it remain so?

The Democrats have started down a slippery slope (as much as I hate the argument). And if they have only taken but a few steps down the hill with this health care reform and charter schools, they are standing on a slope with a two ton elephant trunk wrapped around their necks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Exactly. Private insurance is horrific with greed. That is why there should not be a MANDATE on
real people to buy it, which is what this bill really is.

What should happen is that people should fight this neocon/IMF trend and get a PUBLIC OPTION (at very least). But notice that no matter how much talk there is about a public option, it never got on the Senate bill and it's the Senate bill that is being forced on the House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. Health "reform" was the setup for privatization of Medicare.
Not the direct intention of Obama, I don't believe. But its how the Powers that Be decided they could take the push for health care reform and twist it to their advantage, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. That's exactly right.
And that's why so many of us are fighting it. We know where it leads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:03 PM
Original message
Its difficult to gague any intent with politicians
And Obama is a very astute, intelligent, charismatic politician.

But in terms of rejecting socialism and exchanging government services for the private market, his education policy is most certainly telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
22. It's not about the politicians. It's about who is paying them.
That's what important.

This is the same Peter G Peterson:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/04/washington-post-fiscal-times-peterson

The Washington Post is a newspaper with a proud legacy. It has done much important reporting over the years, most famously its coverage of the Watergate scandal that resulted in the resignation of Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, it seems to have abandoned its journalistic standards. In its last issue of the decade, it published as a news piece an article by the Peter Peterson Foundation-funded Fiscal Times. This compromised the Post's journalistic integrity to the extent that readers can no longer take it seriously.

Peter Peterson is a Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon administration cabinet member who has been trying to gut social security payments and Medicare for at least the last quarter of a century. He has written several books that warn of a demographic disaster when the baby boomers retire. These books often include nonsense arguments to make his case. For example, in one of the books making his pitch for cutting social security as matter of generational equity, Peterson proposes reducing the annual cost of living adjustment. Peterson justified this cut by arguing that the price index overstated the true rate of inflation, therefore the annual cost of living adjustment was overcompensating retirees.

The problem with Peterson's logic is that if the price index really overstated inflation, then the country has been getting wealthier much faster than the standard data show. This means that the young people who he was so worried about would be far richer than anyone could have imagined. It would also mean that the most of the retirees whose benefits he wanted to cut grew up in poverty.

These conclusions logically followed from Peterson's claim that the price index overstated inflation. But Peterson didn't care about the logic, he wanted to cut social security and he was prepared to say anything to advance this agenda.

Of course, what Peterson says matters because he uses his billions to make sure that his voice gets heard. In the case of his books, he would take out full-page ads in major newspapers to ensure that these otherwise very forgettable tracts got taken seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cutlassmama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. I'd LOVE to see Peterson try to make it on SS. LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Agree. And they knew this could never fly under a Republican administration
:cry:

In fact, the Republican brand name is so incredibly tarnished they'd probably have to push a populist program/policy to get back in the game. (Well, legitimately anyway)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. No, but the Republicans are most certainly helping this reform pass
Edited on Sun Mar-07-10 06:07 PM by Oregone
By having nothing but shitty ideas, they make mandated and subsidized private, for-profit insurance look amazing in contrast.

By having a complete failure of a party against an idea, it almost makes that idea more palatable.

Its probably by accident. I don't think Republicans want this to pass, simply because they don't want the Democrats to get a "win". But as far as the fundamentals of the reform, they originated in the Republican party and were in the national debate as far back as the early 70's (when Kennedy led the charge against it)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. You should put "reform" in quotes.
It's not reform: it's feeding the beast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. True. If they wanted to tank it they'd get on Fox News and scream 'MANDATES!'
But not a word from them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Talk radio just keeps crying "socialism"
I guess to hide the fact that it is not socialism but a new kind of stealing-ism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
17. How dramatic
If either party seriously backed privatization of Medicare and Social Security and got it passed, they would face total electoral failure. Besides that, the Democrats have said no to privatization, Blue Dogs and Progressives alike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Obama already said he doesn't mind being a "one-term president."
The legislation is more important than the person or the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #20
39. Good for him...
... 'cuz it's highly likely that he will be, after spending the last three years of his one term as a lame duck. (It could be reasonably argued it was all four years.)

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-10 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. don't let the air out of a good self-induced rage! sheesh
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
33. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
34. "because nobody has told us that is what is being planned"
Edited on Mon Mar-08-10 01:29 AM by upi402
Media will have one very big story pretty soon. But nobody will be watching them. Because we will only take to the streets when our cable bill doesn't get paid.

Bluedogs say they don't support privatization. Anyone still believe what Bluedogs say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 17th 2024, 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC