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

From the ArkTimes store

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

More by Ernest Dumas

  • Silly acts, good law

    It was unavoidable that the struggle by sexual minorities to gain the equal treatment that the Constitution promises them would devolve into silliness and that the majestic courts of the land would have to get their dignity sullied in order to resolve the issues.
    • Dec 14, 2017
  • Renowned reporter and author Roy Reed dies at 87

    Obituary by Ernie Dumas.
    • Dec 11, 2017
  • Tax lies

    If Aristotle's famous principle can be stretched from the theater of art to the theater of politics, we may soon discover whether the Republican tax cuts will challenge the public's "willing suspension of disbelief."
    • Dec 7, 2017
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • No tax help for Trump

    The big conundrum is supposed to be why Donald Trump does so well among white working-class people, particularly men, who do not have a college education.
    • Aug 11, 2016
  • Dollars and degrees

    Governor Hutchinson says a high graduation rate (ours is about the lowest) and a larger quotient of college graduates in the population are critical to economic development. Every few months there is another, but old, key to unlocking growth.
    • Aug 25, 2016

Most Shared

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • Silly acts, good law

    It was unavoidable that the struggle by sexual minorities to gain the equal treatment that the Constitution promises them would devolve into silliness and that the majestic courts of the land would have to get their dignity sullied in order to resolve the issues.
    • Dec 14, 2017
  • Tax lies

    If Aristotle's famous principle can be stretched from the theater of art to the theater of politics, we may soon discover whether the Republican tax cuts will challenge the public's "willing suspension of disbelief."
    • Dec 7, 2017
  • Not net neutral

    The Washington swamp that Donald Trump was going to drain gets deeper and wider every week.
    • Nov 30, 2017
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »

December

S M T W T F S
  1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31  

Most Viewed

  • Gratitude

    Now, more than ever, I find myself thankful for those who resist. Those who remind us of our higher common values. The fact-checkers and truth-tellers. Those who build bridges in communities instead of walls to segregate. The ones who stand up and speak out against injustice.
  • A difference

    How low can a columnist go? On evidence, nowhere near as low as the president of the United States. I'd intended to highlight certain ironies in the career of U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The self-anointed moral arbiter of the Senate began her career as a tobacco company lawyer — that is, somebody ill-suited to demand absolute purity of anybody, much less Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
  • Money talks

    Democratic candidates face a dilemma in Arkansas. To take on the GOP members who are firmly entrenched in the state Legislature and Congress, they will need lots of money and lots of votes. The easiest way to get more votes is to spend more money. Obscene amounts of money. And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and President Trump's judicial appointments, this will be our reality for a long time. The six Republicans who make up our congressional delegation have stopped pretending to care about their constituents. They vote in line with the interests of big corporations and lobbyists. They know what side their bread is buttered on.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: A difference

    • History is likely to move with light speed in concluding that in late 2017 society…

    • on December 14, 2017
  • Re: A difference

    • Gillibrand is a tough chick, and she knows she is a political whore, like 95%…

    • on December 14, 2017
  • Re: Cats and dogs

    • I miss my wolves. It has been over five years since the last of my…

    • on December 12, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation