Social Security is Not in Trouble
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The Bush administration is simply masterful at the art of the fake crisis (and the ensuing war on said crisis.) Want to invade Iraq, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with 9/11? No problemo--- there's a WMD crisis.
According to Paul Krugman, if the Social Security trust does indeed run out in 2052, all that means is that Social Security revenues will only be able to cover 80% of its costs-- compared, today, with 68% for the rest of government outside of Social Security. In other words, under this calamitous worst case scenario you'll be hearing about ad nauseum over the coming months, Social Security in 2052 will be the most efficient part of the US federal government. And that's if the doom sayers are RIGHT. Privatization, "choice" (the new buzz word because "privatization" doesn't test well), overhaulling, dismantling Social Security is simply neither necessary nor prudent. Indeed making the Bush tax cuts permanent will account for a greater hit on Gross Domestic Product than the supposed doomsday scenario about Social Security. This is why even his own party colleagues are abandoning him on this issue (also because unlike Dubya, most of them plan to run for office again).
But Harold Meyerson put it better than me in his op-ed piece in the Washington Post. So here, without permission, is today's APW guest editorial.
___________________________
Op-Ed Washington Post: President of Fabricated Crises
Harold Meyerson-----Wednesday-1/12/05
Some presidents make the history books by managing crises. Lincoln had Fort Sumter, Roosevelt had the Depression and Pearl Harbor, and Kennedy had the missiles in Cuba. George W. Bush, of course, had Sept. 11, and for a while thereafter -- through the overthrow of the Taliban -- he earned his page in history, too.
But when historians look back at the Bush presidency, they're more likely to note that what sets Bush apart is not the crises he managed but the crises he fabricated. The fabricated crisis is the hallmark of the Bush presidency. To attain goals that he had set for himself before he took office -- the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the privatization of Social Security -- he concocted crises where there were none.
So Iraq became a clear and present danger to American hearths and homes, bristling with weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear attack just waiting to happen. And now, this week, the president is embarking on his second great scare campaign, this one to convince the American people that Social Security will collapse and that the only remedy is to cut benefits and redirect resources into private accounts.
In fact, Social Security is on a sounder footing now than it has been for most of its 70-year history. Without altering any of its particulars, its trustees say, it can pay full benefits straight through 2042. Over the next 75 years its shortfall will amount to just 0.7 percent of national income, according to the trustees, or 0.4 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That still amounts to a real chunk of change, but it pales alongside the 75-year cost of Bush's Medicare drug benefit, which is more than twice its size, or Bush's tax cuts if permanently extended, which would be nearly four times its size.
In short, Social Security is not facing a financial crisis at all. It is facing a need for some distinctly sub-cataclysmic adjustments over the next few decades that would increase its revenue and diminish its benefits.
Politically, however, Social Security is facing the gravest crisis it has ever known. For the first time in its history, it is confronted by a president, and just possibly by a working congressional majority, who are opposed to the program on ideological grounds, who view the New Deal as a repealable aberration in U.S. history, who would have voted against establishing the program had they been in Congress in 1935. But Bush doesn't need Karl Rove's counsel to know that repealing Social Security for reasons of ideology is a non-starter.
So it's time once more to fabricate a crisis. In Bushland, it's always time to fabricate a crisis. We have a crisis in medical malpractice costs, though the CBO says that malpractice costs amount to less than 2 percent of total health care costs. (In fact, what we have is a president who wants to diminish the financial, and thus political, clout of trial lawyers.) We have a crisis in judicial vacancies, though in fact Senate Democrats used the filibuster to block just 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial appointments.
With crisis concoction as its central task -- think of how many administration officials issued dire warnings of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein or, now, by Social Security's impending bankruptcy -- this presidency, more than any I can think of, has relied on the classic tools of propaganda. Indeed, it's almost impossible to imagine the Bush presidency absent the Fox News Network and right-wing talk radio.
With the blurring of fact and fiction so central to the Bush presidency's purposes, is it any wonder that government agencies ranging from Health and Human Services to the Office of National Drug Control Policy have been filming editorial messages as mock newscast segments, complete with mock reporters, and offering them to local television stations?
Is it any wonder that the Education Department paid commentator Armstrong Williams $241,000 to promote its No Child Left Behind programs? In this administration, it is the role of a government agency to turn out pro-Bush news by whatever means possible. Fox News viewership in the African American community wasn't very large, and here was Williams, who seemed to have learned during his clerkship for Clarence Thomas that it was rude to decline any gifts.
We've had plenty of presidents, Richard Nixon most notoriously, who divided the media into friendly and enemy camps. I can't think of one, however, so fundamentally invested in the spread of disinformation -- and so fundamentally indifferent to the corrosive effect of propaganda on democracy -- as Bush. That, too, should earn him a page in the history books.
meyersonh@washpost.com
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Labels: The politics
Posted by: --josh-- @ 5:05 PM
Interesting to hear social security will actually last that long and not run out. I hope it does not run out as it is great help to many just like medicaid for health coverage.
Post a Comment
<< Home