Favorite

Bush's attack on Social Security 

People who said President Bush was out to scrap Social Security, not save it, were prophetic. When Bush last week finally offered a few details about his plan to prevent Social Security’s future insolvency, as he calls it, the historic compact among American workers began to disappear before our eyes. The president made it sound like a bonanza for young people and an even greater bargain for the working poor, but his rhetoric was just piffle. He misled in about every way that he could or else he did not grasp what the reformulation of benefits that he was embracing would actually do. Take your choice. For the first time, Bush came out for the progressive indexing of benefits, which means better-off retirees would see dramatic cuts in their regular Social Security pensions — a 21 percent reduction for medium-income earners (those taking in $36,000 today) and 31 percent for those with incomes greater than $59,000. If the workers opted for private accounts, their regular benefits would be cut even further — by a total of 66 percent for medium earners and 87 percent for the higher-income retirees. One little matter that the president did not explain very well — not at all really — was that when people diverted payroll taxes into private accounts they would have their defined benefits cut again by one dollar for each dollar transferred into the account plus an interest charge of 3 percent. But low-income workers would not have their benefits cut, unless they took one of the private account options the president offers. Bush made it sound like the poor would get higher benefits under his plan although they wouldn’t. John Tierney of The New York Times, an apologist for Bush, rhapsodized about it in a column reprinted in the Democrat-Gazette Tuesday. He praised Bush as a modern Robin Hood who wanted to “improve benefits for the poor” while cutting them for others. It was untrue. The poor just wouldn’t face the cuts others would. What Bush proposes is a two-tiered system, the traditional Social Security program and separate stock accounts that workers could opt to put a big chunk of their payroll taxes in (once in, they would be stuck in it for life). It would be designed so that the stock accounts would look more and more appealing, that is if the markets should ever shake the anemia of the George W. Bush economy, while traditional Social Security would look more and more like a bad deal. People over time would want to opt out of it entirely, and politically Social Security’s social insurance functions could not be sustained. Regular Social Security would look increasingly like a bad deal because the trust fund would bear the whole cost of paying for disabled workers and survivors of workers who died before retirement, which is a third of the Social Security payout. Social Security is a compact between workers of all classes and across generations that they will pay for each other’s unexpected life reverses. I said the president misled. Here’s an example. He started his news conference by announcing, “As a matter of fairness I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today’s seniors get.” He was talking about inflation-adjusted benefits. Big deal! If absolutely nothing is done about Social Security, future generations will still get benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today’s seniors get. They won’t get what they’re promised now, but those benefits would be better than today’s benefits adjusted for inflation after the trust fund is exhausted, whether it is in 2041 or 2051. Bush said his private accounts would be merely what members of Congress have provided for themselves. That was a lie. “You’ve heard me say, I like to say this,” Bush said, “if it’s good enough for the Congress it is — it ought to be good enough for the workers, to give them that option.” But Congress and other federal employees can open private accounts in addition to Social Security, not in place of it. President Clinton and Democrats proposed that for other workers, but Bush rejects it. What was he thinking? Finally, Bush said that for young workers who were worried about the risks of investing their Social Security money in stocks — if they’ve followed the market since he has been president they should be worried — his plan would allow them to invest all the money instead in U.S. treasury bonds so that they would be guaranteed never to lose money. But they would be guaranteed to lose money that way. See, if they opt for private accounts their regular benefits would be reduced by a dollar for every dollar they put into private accounts, and they would be assessed an interest charge of 3 percent above the inflation rate. But 3 percent above inflation is all that Social Security actuaries project that treasury bonds will earn. Many analysts believe they will earn considerably less. So a worker investing in treasury bonds would be almost certain to lose his retirement benefits, not protect them. Would you leave your family’s future in this man’s hands?
Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • Ad man Heathcott sues CJRW for damages in ouster

    Gary Heathcott the long-time ad and PR man who now lives in San Antonio has sued CJRW, the major ad and PR firm, over its severing of a consulting deal with him last year and asks $1.3 million in actual damages plus unspecified punitive damages.
    • Dec 18, 2018
  • Court dismisses ethics complaints against Kavanaugh

    The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed numerous judicial ethics complaints against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh because the law exempts Supreme Court members, even for acts committed as a judge covered by the law. In short: Bart O'Kavanaugh is above the law.
    • Dec 18, 2018
  • In face of blowback, state will slow down assisted living cuts

    Brett Rains of 40/29 is tweeting from the Capitol that the Department of Human Services is slowing its push for cuts in reimbursements for home health aides that critics have said could force many people into more expensive nursing home and force companies that provide the services out of business.
    • Dec 18, 2018
  • More »

More by Ernest Dumas

  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
    • Dec 13, 2018
  • A decent man

    The beatification of George H.W. Bush, which even the current president signaled was OK, would have surprised the 41st president, who seemed to have accepted the public's verdict that, although a waffler, he was a decent man who did his best and didn't do any harm to the people of the country or the world with whose well-being he was entrusted for a time.
    • Dec 6, 2018
  • Prelude to war

    President Trump's casual disinterest in the murder of Jamaal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia's leaders, a crime he once abhorred, may be only the final repudiation of America's ancient obedience to human rights, but what if it is much more? What if it is a prelude to war?
    • Nov 29, 2018
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Along the civil rights trail

    A convergence of events in recent days signaled again how far we have come and how far we have yet to go in civil rights.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • The Oval outhouse

    One thing all Americans finally can agree upon is that public discourse has coarsened irretrievably in the era of Donald Trump and largely at his instance.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • Shrugging off sulfides

    The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported a shocker on its front page Sunday. The rotten-egg odor from the Koch brothers' sprawling paper plant at Crossett is still making people sick, but the state's pollution control agency is unaware of the problem.
    • Mar 29, 2018

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
    • Dec 13, 2018
  • A decent man

    The beatification of George H.W. Bush, which even the current president signaled was OK, would have surprised the 41st president, who seemed to have accepted the public's verdict that, although a waffler, he was a decent man who did his best and didn't do any harm to the people of the country or the world with whose well-being he was entrusted for a time.
    • Dec 6, 2018
  • Prelude to war

    President Trump's casual disinterest in the murder of Jamaal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia's leaders, a crime he once abhorred, may be only the final repudiation of America's ancient obedience to human rights, but what if it is much more? What if it is a prelude to war?
    • Nov 29, 2018
  • More »

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: No leash

    • I used to believe I wasn't a cat person, till I had my first cat…

    • on December 18, 2018
  • Re: No leash

    • I once had a cat -- Earl was his name -- who loved to ride…

    • on December 17, 2018
  • Re: Beware of 'unity'

    • I like this opinion piece of yours published on my 71st birthday. My best friend…

    • on December 17, 2018
 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation