good news!
From today’s Note:
We were going to type “The President’s efforts to fundamentally reshape the Social Security system are not dead,” but the mere act of saying that the patient lives could suggest to some that the patient is very, very sick and itis only a matter of time.
Certainly by the standard ways the Gang of 500 measures such things — to continue the metaphor — the patient is in a hospital bed, with all sorts of tubes inserted in every natural and human-made orifice, with CW doctors sweeping in and out of the room, speaking in hushed, knowing, and somber tones.
We would be fighting the obvious critical mass of this news cycle if we reported to you anything but that Republicans remain skittish and tactically divided; Democrats remain united and pumped up; and many Gang members are fundamentally skeptical that anything will happen.
It’s not dead yet! We can’t let up.
Keep this in mind: this is not simply about whether or not the program of Social Security will continue to exist. This fight is about whether the market beats the state, whether we believe in a safety net or a society of pure capitalists. This is the Republicans’ attempt to radicially reshape the ideological, not just institutional, basis of American society by making us all cut-throat capitalists. This cannot happen.
Comments
Well, here in Europe there`s a very similar debate on social security and welfare sustainability, perhaps with a difference: in most countries, a State-run social security and national health service is regarded as a dogma that not even more liberal right-wing politicians will be too keen on openly questioning. That`s probably because of post-world war II welfare state tradition and the prevailance of conservative thinking over liberal ideas within right-wing parties.
Anyway, the FACT is that, due to aging population, social security might become bankrupt in many countries, and the only way to avoid it is getting those birth rates pumping again, raising the legal age of retirement and start investing that money as any ensurance company would do.
to be clear (and because you’re in another country I wouldn’t expect you to know this, God knows I know nothing about what’s going on in European politics, which is bad), what the Republicans are trying to do is not to save the program’s long term viability by cutting programs, raising taxes or raising the retirement age.
Because there is a long term problem (i.e. at least 20 years down the road) they are manufacturing a crisis as a frame for pushing an ideological shift in the program itself – private savings accounts.
You`d be surprised how concerned we are about Bush`s policies here across the ocean
Yeah, but even then, it’s not like they’re asking for the entire system to be shifted to the private sector. Isn’t only a small percentage of each person’s payroll taxes that could be holed away? That doesn’t encourage us to be rampant capitalists – it might encourage us to save more and think more long term about retirement. What’s wrong with people saving a little of their payroll taxes? Ideally, this would be coupled with something else like means testing to really make an impact in saving Soc. Sec.
The Economist, not exactly a Republican organ, recently came out in favor of Bush’s plan because of its potential to increase savings and give people “ownership.” They also debunked the idea that private accounts flopped in England, which some Dems here are trying to use as an example of a failed system. It’s worth a read. I think it came out two or three weeks ago. I agree with the Economist that encouraging these things isn’t hurtful, even if they don’t begin to impact Soc. Sec. for the positive for decades.
In any case, the real problem is Medicare/Medicaid.
Post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.