Thursday, November 04, 2004

Our Social Security Crisis: Bush

If you want a sense of how our grief might serve us best in abbreviated form, President Bush announced today his intention to begin reforming Social Security through privatization, as part of the continued campaign to shift wealth from the population back to its rightful heirs. Social Security, probably the most successful government program in American history, is also one of the last remaining that directly benefits people. This concept--that tax money be used for people--is basically unacceptable in the contemporary political climate. Bush has sold his economic plan as one which frees America from the burden of taxes. From his perspective, this is not inaccurate: "America" means the owner and investor classes. According to this logic, things are going very well for "America," and there's great reason for optimism. The progressive income tax, all but dismantled last term, will be gone completely under Bush's "income-neutral" tax plans this term. Missile defense, that great tax-payer gift to defense contractors, will cost upwards of a trillion dollars. And now Social Security, the last great tax reserve outside Medicare dedicated to people is to be handed back to the captains of industry.

8 comments:

Sheryl said...

This is the sort of thing I was just writing about in my blog. Half the country voted against this guy's policies, but who cares what half of America wants. Bush never negotiates or compromises on anything. He just does whatever the hell he wants and fuck anyone who disagrees, and then the right wonders why we think he is immoral.

Past Presidents would only be so bold if they won with a political "mandate." Bush doesn't care that he has divided the country.

Basically social security is an american institution. I wonder if there are any civil disobedience organizations that promote tax evasion. Seems like if people aren't going to get anything for their tax dollars anymore other than weapons systems and wars, then we should probably cut the money off at the source.

11/04/2004 10:56:00 PM
J.R. Boyd said...

That might be good if you could control the outcome. But our system has a way of distributing losses to the poor majority first--in fact, Bush has based his economic policy on it. He's denied the government more taxes than you or I could ever withhold, knowing the effect will be to slam the poor, since they're the only ones who actually live by the "free-market." The wealthy are insulated and protected by a powerful welfare state. That was Alexander Hamilton's idea. These are fundamental problems of American capitalism that go right back to the beginning. Things like social security are the exceptions--examples of people using the government for themselves. As such they can't be tolerated.

11/05/2004 01:37:00 AM
Sheryl said...

I suppose you are right, but considering the direction of things, those protections for the poor won't last much longer. :(

They had Grover Norquist on NOW tonight talking about the conservative agenda. Major yuck!

(http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/norquist.html)

11/05/2004 11:08:00 PM
G-Man said...

Actually, less than half voted against the President. He was reelected with a mojority that counted in the millions. It is you who are in the minority and it isn't because you are the cream of the crop either. All this thinking otherwise I've been hearing is conceit plain and simple!

Privatizing Social Security gives control of the money back to you and I. Where we can invest it so that it grows over time and we can retire on a better income than could have been afforded by the defunct social security system as it now exists. I understand that this idea of giving you and I control of things runs counter to your belief system. You would prefer that the government gets all the money and parses it out equally to all (including those who've done nothing to earn it!)

11/05/2004 11:51:00 PM
J.R. Boyd said...

What I would prefer is that the social policy people fought for in the 20th century not be repealed in favor of that which existed in the 19th.

Perhaps you can explain to me how Social Security "parses [money] out" to "those who've done nothing to earn it."

11/06/2004 01:43:00 AM
Sheryl said...

I'm with Ryan, as usual. We think that life for the elderly is bad in the modern nursing home, but it ain't nothing compared to what life was life was like prior to social security.

G-Man, I thought you pretended to be into history. Have you not read anything about the conditions that lead to the creation of social security?

11/07/2004 06:35:00 PM
gecko said...

I see extremes in both directions. It is the left that says we will be raping the poor and elderly. It is the right that says, well, screw them. I see a significant reform in social security which will benefit future generations, the economy, and still provide for those who are eligible for benefits. It should be mentioned that not only do those who have contributed rate social security, but other groups who have not are eligible as well. This is a national welfare program, as is the current tax system.

11/09/2004 11:58:00 AM
J.R. Boyd said...

I'm not sure what you mean by the tax-system being a national welfare program. I got a couple hundred bucks back last April thanks to Bush, along with a gas-bill that was through the roof, ever-increasing public transportation fares, and the closing of a fire-station around the corner from me which has served the neighborhood for somewhere around 100 years. While I appreciate the three hundred dollars, it's not exactly enough to buy my own fire-engine. (Now maybe if everyone in the neighborhood pooled their money together--hey, that's what government is for!) In retrospect, I think I could have done without a week's pay for a fully funded fire-department, dedicated funding to mass transit, and some kind of subsidy to keep the goddam gas utility from raising their already astronomical rates every winter season--this time with a promise to discontinue service to anyone who can't pay, plus fines and all kinds of stipulations for turning the service back on. This in a city where families already have to choose between heat and food...

With regard to social security the essential question is whether you want it or not. It's an interesting question. Remember that a similar thing happened in the 90's, when we had the "welfare crisis." Black mothers were driving cadillacs, teenagers were having babies and you and I were paying for them, etc. We didn't spend any money on those programs in the first place, much less than any other industrialized nation, as far as that goes, but nevermind that. It was enough to cause a national crisis, with both parties readily agreeing to shift even more wealth back to the "men of best quality"--for instance, Newt Gingrich, whose congressional district at the time received higher federal subsidies per capita than any other in the nation (to the tune of $80 billion for building the F-22), and away from the poor (one or two of whom might have made some use of it). That was called welfare reform.

Well, fast-forward to our current "crisis." Again, there is a "broad consensus" between parties that something must be done about social security--another way of saying that the business community is in agreement with itself. The general population, on the other hand, wants social security; in fact they're afraid to lose it. And all they're hearing right now is that it won't exist by the time they retire. So it's probably true that both sides agree on reform, except one group means saving it and the other means getting rid of it. The business press, for their part, has been perfectly clear about this; for instance, Business Week, which asks in a piece written over the summer: "How do we help younger workers prepare for this shift to lower benefits in retirement? Incentives to save, such as the Bush Administration's proposal for an expanded Retirement Saving Account, offer such an opportunity..."

11/09/2004 06:29:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)