Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post reporter has a problem with Social Security. She writes:
"the rising costs of Social Security and government health-care programs by offering to open talks with no preconditions."They are on tap as subject for debate in future talks between the GOP and Democrats in Congress.
Medicare and Medicaid are at-risk financially. In brief, the reason for the financial fragility of Medicare and Medicaid is the affordability crisis of the U.S. health-care system.
Against this backdrop of the national health-care crisis, Social Security is the most successful insurance program going. The key to its success is the social pooling of risk. Social Security is not an investment.
Individual savings accounts are not insurance coverage. President George W.
Bush has tried to partially privatize Social Security, proposing individual
investment accounts for younger workers. They remain the rhetorical target
as potential members of the president’s “ownership society.”
Now increasingly, these younger workers face being paid lower wages as new
hires. Add their student fees for higher education that are rising with a
grim constancy. The White House is well aware of the social conditions that
this demographic is living, which can make it desperate and therefore
at-risk to scare tactics.
One example is the oft-repeated claim that Social Security will be gone when
young workers retire. Thus there is a need to change the program now. The
go-to guy for such Social Security reform is Treasury Secretary Henry M.
Paulson Jr.
As the Bush presidency faces low polling numbers for its foreign and
domestic policies, he needs political allies for yet another go at building
support to reform Social Security. So we see an olive branch of sorts being
extended to the Democratic-majority Congress to discuss Social Security.
The problem with the administration’s plan to privatize Social Security
remains what it has been. The program’s finances are sound, on rock-solid
ground for the next 40 years with no change at all, the non-partisan
Congressional Budget Office reports.
Presumably, the Post reporter is ignorant of this fact. It is not
arguable. Maybe that explains the editorializing in her reporting,
combining the
finances of Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid.
###
Seth Sandronsky is a member of Sacramento Area Peace Action and a co-editor
of Because People Matter, Sacramento's progressive paper
www.bpmnews.org/. He can be reached at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
Social Security - a Breakdown
{youtube}Tts2uTWt6e8{/youtube}
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Then tell them "no." Heck, even when the Republicans controlled Congress the proponents couldn't sneak personal accounts through: too many Republicans would not go along. With every Bush road show appearance the public support for the scheme went down. "Personal accounts" are an obvious bad idea. Period.
Or, instead of saying "no" just ask the proponents to show an analysis (not just wild claims and propaganda) that shows the personal accounts will even work. That should shut them up: an analysis won't show that. An analysis will show that "personal accounts" as the basis of a general retirement scheme are just a government-mandated, government-controlled bubble scheme.
We need a discussion. We need it to be demonstrated that "personal accounts" are not the way to provide general retirement security.