Click here to view/purchase all Roger L. Simon novels.

February 16, 2005: The Guru Speaks

Sometimes I think the Democrats are walking into walls. (Hey, and I'm still a Democrat. Too lazy to go and register as an Independent or unconsciously reluctant? You decide.) Their latest silliness was visible all over the networks last night where one after the other were opining that Alan Greenspan would put the kibosh on private Social Security accounts during his Congressional testimony today. Prominent among them was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who was then shown advocating those same private accounts only a few short years ago. Was Reid having a senior moment or just being a partisan hack? I hope it's the former because the latter is almost ludicrously self-destructive in this instance. Clinton, as is well known, advocated the same thing during his administration. What's with these Democrats? They're starting to make Tom Delay look good. [Not.-ed. Okay, not.]

Of course, the world now knows what Greenspan hath decreed. Is he right? Beats me. But I'd trust him over Harry Reid in a New York minute. And so would anybody else with an ounce of sense.

I think this whole story has an interesting reflection in the War in Iraq. Those same Democrats who only favored private Social Security accounts when they were in power are the same people who backed Clinton completely during the unseating of Milosevic, but are opponents of the more geo-strategically important unseating of Saddam. Would they have been for the same War in Iraq under the same conditions with the same results had Clinton been in power? I'd bet my house on it. And the same goes for most of the war's media opponents. This is power/party politics with the thinnest veneer of logical rationalization.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall... as well as commenter Steve J below... have corrected an inaccuracy on my part. Clinton (and there fore Reid) was not advocating privatizing a portion of Social Security, but was for putting some of the fund itself into the stock market. There is a distinction here clearly, but not one to get all fevered about. (Marshall doesn't.) I find this whole debate an example of what is wrong in our politics. Cool heads should be able to examine the numbers here, see what is most probably right and make the appropriate adjustments without having to resort to open warefare. Obviously that's difficult for many.

As for the gnomic Mr. Greenspan's testimony. It pretty much made sense to me, but my pension fund's been doing well lately.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Roger:

You read my mind. I thought of listening to Clinton say that SS would have to be dealt with, and I remember him saying Saddam had wmd and should be removed from power as well. And the Democrats agreed when one of their own was in the White House. But now, it is a different reality.

I think that if Clinton or Gore had tried to enforce the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the Democrats would have backed them. None of that blood for oil crap. And if a Democrat were calling for SS reform they would be behind him all the way.

Instead we have Bushitler trying to destroy Social Security just because he is an evil warmongering sadist who gets off on the idea of old ladies starving.

I mean sheesh, nobody wants to get the blame for wrecking SS, that would be political suicide. But then again so is changing your position depending on whether the President has a D or and R behind his name.

I think the Dems think we are stupid.

Posted by: Terrye at February 16, 2005 2:44 PM

This is just terrible. The Democrats stand for absolutely nothing. The country would be served better, if the out of power political party had some objectives, but they don't.

Posted by: AllenS at February 16, 2005 2:46 PM

I keep wondering why the Republicans don't initiate more of a public relations offensive to sell social security reform. They could make some great commercials featuring Democrats discussing how the system needs to be changed to save it, but now that someone's trying to do something about it, they're against it. They're denying a problems exists and contradicting themselves. I also feel that not enough has been done to clearly spell out the advantages of a program change. Once again, they need to make their argument through more sources of information, not just relying on the msm.

Posted by: lindenen at February 16, 2005 2:56 PM

"This is power/party politics with the thinnest veneer of logical rationalization."

The guru speaks...the sad truth.

GWB should find a way to get his predecessor (I call him "Cigar Boy") involved in foreign policy issues. I think he agrees overall with Bush's goals and knows damned well that he was asleep at the switches for too long where terrorism is concerned. I also think that he wants to do good and to do it well, on the world stage, both because I still feel it's his true nature and because he'd (understandably) like to add some more positives to his legacy (to get the stain out of the dress so to speak).

But my mischievous side wishes for this just to see how Bill's former faithful will find a way to love him and hate what he's doing for the "enemy" at the same time. Get the straightjackets ready, it's meltdown time.

Posted by: Bruce W. at February 16, 2005 3:05 PM

Everyone, from Rush Limbaugh to Roger to several commenters above, has a FUNDAMENTAL misconception about what Clinton's "private accounts" were: He was proposing that the GOVERNMENT take the same amount (or more) in taxes for Social Security, and then the GOVERNMENT would invest the money in the stock market. The return would be better, but it would still be the GOVERNMENT'S money.

Now, what would be the effect on corporate decisions? Oh, ISP's don't want to implement Carnivore? Well, at the next board meeting of Charter Cable, the 15% shareholder, USGOV Investment group, says that Charter needs to not fight this, or "in the name of social responsibility", we might just have to sell our shares. Tomorrow. Apply this to any issue you want. Energy policy. Gun manufacturers. You name it.

The fundamental difference between Bush's policy and Clinton's is who makes the decisions, and who owns the money. Bush says the individual; Clinton was always GOVERNMENT.

Posted by: SDN at February 16, 2005 3:06 PM

Too lazy to go and register as an Independent or unconsciously reluctant? You decide.

Many years ago I registered Libertarian as an assist in their efforts to qualify for a permanent place on the California ballot. In the ensuing years, as Libertarians increasingly have descended into their own moonbat caves, it's become an embarrassment to be associated with them. However, I'm still a registered Libertarian. So, judging solely by my own absence of action, my answer is: too lazy.

If Reid really thought that Greenspan would oppose private Social Security accounts, he is even less astute than I previously believed. I find it telling that when the Democratic leadership gathered around the likeness of FDR, they apparently did so without knowing that even he did not expect, nor intend, that SS would continue on a pay-as-you-go basis indefinitely.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at February 16, 2005 3:21 PM

SDN is right of course. And wasn't it Clinton who proposed Universal Savings Accounts (USAs) in one of his SOTU addresses? The idea was for the federal government to match (although not on a 1:1 basis) private funds saved in individual accounts and, as I recall, it went nowhere with the Republicans in Congress. But, just for fun, why don't we have President Bush make a similar proposal and then we can watch the Dems jump ugly on it.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at February 16, 2005 3:37 PM

"I keep wondering why the Republicans don't initiate more of a public relations offensive to sell social security reform."

Lindenen,

Why should they? Both houses are 55% Republican and it's the President's bill. The public spoke on Nov. 2 and all the Dem negative yammering in the world can't change that.

In the alternative, much of the media huffed and puffed for all it was worth for two years against the President and realized bupkus in return. I assume by PR offensive you mean some sort of effort with the dimwits who comprise the Washington press corps - the one's who got their butts kicked on Nov 2? Because it's illegal for the government to actually hire a PR outfit to push legislation.

In the second alternative, we are the PR campaign. Roger L. Simon and his host of almost loyal commenters plus a dozen other bloggers and their commenters - and talk radio. That's where the majority - and therefore the PR "weight" rests.

The same economy of effort that returned W to the White House and brought freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq will give us the needed reform in Social Security. And the Dems can howl 'til they're hoarse while it's happening but it doesn't mean a thing.

Majority rule is kinda neat.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 16, 2005 3:41 PM

Roger,

Well, Richard Perle and Victor Davis Hanson are registered Democrats so you are in a good company.

Myself, I got so peeved over the shenanigans of the Florida Supreme Court in the year 2000 that I changed my registration from Independent to Republican. Now I get nice Christmas greetings from the White House, invitations to the Inauguration, and Presidential photos. It is true, the Party does hit me for money ever now and then, but as far as I am concerned I bought this presidency and paid for it. So there.

Posted by: Katherine at February 16, 2005 4:17 PM

Even though they could pass it easily with just their numerical superiority, they still need to convince the voters or the voters might decide that it's time to kick the bums out. They can't just run around passing unpopular laws because they can.

Posted by: lindenen at February 16, 2005 4:17 PM

Rick:

Almost??? I will have you know that I would take a bullet for Roger.

But I do think the President needs to make the case with the people. I work with a lot of older people and the Democrats have got them scared to death.

I just wish the Dems would stop scaring old people and come up with a plan of their own.

Posted by: Terrye at February 16, 2005 4:23 PM

“I just wish the Dems would stop scaring old people and come up with a plan of their own.’

Terrye, scaring old people IS the Democratic plan. The only one they have.

Posted by: Katherine at February 16, 2005 4:36 PM

Lindenen & Terrye,

Wait until the legislation is reported and goes to conference for reconciliation. At that point there will be a rational discussion of the positives and potential negatives that will clarify matters for the majority of people. It's rather pointless to discuss legislation in detail until it actually exists.

And Terrye, there are no changes proposed whatsoever for people over 55. That might change with respect to COLA adjustments but no one is going to get a check the month after the bill passes that will be smaller than the one they got the month before.

Let's face it, W could give a SS policy speech that was as clear as a bell on all points and the Washington press corps would hook up with the DNC in a heartbeat to misrepresent it. Fear and hate are what the Dem's are selling and there will always be a market for it. Just not as big a market as there used to be.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 16, 2005 4:40 PM

Katherine,

Don't forget the "scare the young people with the phantom draft" plan.

Posted by: WichitaBoy at February 16, 2005 4:52 PM

WhichitaBoy,

LOL!….

Posted by: Katherine at February 16, 2005 4:57 PM

I'm not sure PSAs are the best or even a complete solution. Then again, I used to look at Social Security and think that I was screwed, whereas now I see there might be a little bit in it for me.

At least W did cite the single biggest factor in my concerns, namely demographics.

As for selling it, I think Rick was right that we're the PR campaign. I'd go further, based on some of W's later statements. IIRC he said that everything was on the table except raising the withholding rate. I think he's put out a proposal, and asked us to debate it. He's not the most detail-oriented President we've had, to be sure.

Posted by: Dishman at February 16, 2005 5:22 PM

I know it will not effect people over 55, but that does not mean they believe that. And folks on disability are also scared.

I think there needs to be an honest debate devoid of the usual partisan posturing. This is important.

Posted by: Terrye at February 16, 2005 5:48 PM

Terrye,

Here is a transcript of W today in New Hampshire pitching the SS bill. It lays out the administrations position pretty well and he spends some time talking to a dairyman, too.

Read the actual transcript and then try and find an objective news report on what was said. Then take a look at Greenspan's remarks and look at the headlines about it in the news.

As I said, what W or any admin spokesperson says doesn't mean a damn thing to the media yokels with their negative spin. There is no way in the world that the older folks that you speak of will ever get a straight story from print or broadcast media (other than talk radio).

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 16, 2005 6:24 PM

okay, one more comment today and I've used up my limit on comment space!

Roger, I'm not sure if it's laziness, I prefer to think of it as hope. (and Kyla, too)
If saner voices keep deserting the party, it will descend even further into the abyss. Folks like you and Joe Lieberman need to try to gain a stronger hold on the party. I know there are more of you out there, I don't know what needs to be done, but reform from inside would be the preferable route to change, don't you think?
The situation with the Libertarian party just makes me sad. There are so many who would like to see a sane alternative platform, and the party keeps fronting guaranteed losing jokes as their nominees. A realistic Libertarian nominee who supported spending reform, freedom from government interference, and lowered taxes would sweep up the entire middle ground who are deeply tired of the moral holy talk from the far right and equally tired of the social engineering from the left. But they just can't get themselves in check long enough to support anyone who's not awaaaaay out there on the fringe. It's as if they've accepted their role as jester in the election process. Too sad.
I don't think it's "Democrat" that's the problem, it's the people who are now in charge.
My brother couldn't be more conservative, but he will not stand for people trashing "Democrats" around him - he always admonishes that he thinks basically most people are after the same thing - happy, comfortable people in this country and around the world - we just disagree about how to get there. I wish more people had that same view. I know there are some who would argue his point but, on balance, I think he is right. Somehow those saner voices need to get control of the debate.

Posted by: socalgal at February 16, 2005 7:14 PM

Roger, don't worry about registering as an Independent, you're already a member of the Anti-idiotarian party, just see lgf http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-anti-idiotarians.php

The great thing about membership is that you don't have to go register but are allowed to remain in your pajamas!

Posted by: Barry Dauphin at February 16, 2005 7:37 PM

Damn you, Roger! How dare you remember what people said in the past! Don't you realize selective amnesia is the mother's milk of progressive movements around the world? (Chappa-what? Josef who?)

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 16, 2005 8:34 PM

The problem is that there is no viable, problem free way to move a two party system to a multiple party democracy. Without first creating an absolute dictatorial by forcing one party into extremes, you would never see the need to split a half majority/minority into further separate entities.

Before we see a change in the Democrat way of politics, we (unfortunately) need to push the party to near extinction. This phenomenon will bring some unflattering aspects of Republicans to the surface. Yet today's status quo is not a working or productive solution. How do you compromise politically when both sides of the sand-box claim the shovel to do its best work on their portion of the turf?

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Roger for the opportunity to express opinons (and to a certain extent, shameless propaganda) in his comments section. It has been an absolute delight. Thank you!
I only wish that some of the few 294ish (:)) people that have come through this website to our page, would post a note in my comments section. Even better yet, a comment by Roger...

In my defense, you cannot fault a man for having goals and aspirations - as slight as they may be!

Thanks!

Posted by: OJ at February 16, 2005 10:49 PM

This is interesting because on similar topic of "Defense of the MSM" at http://www.stevesilver.net/mt/archives/005625.html stevesilver.net(he somewhat minimized liberal bias)I answered with the following...

I actually agree that the term "liberal bias" is probably improper and using the term "MSM" tiresome, but as a person who has always voted Democrat until this last election cycle (all the way back to Jimmy Carter) I will say bias skewed against Republicans is obvious. I guess people say MSM to mean the Established National Media Centers of Washington and New York City where many stories originate and are filtered. As a life long Washington D.C. resident I must say one would be blind to not see this. So I guess I say while I agree with you on the point that if these media people ran the country it would probably not change much however the real point is that with this same logic there is little difference between Bush and Clinton except on the margins of policy yet the difference in how they (the MSM) paint the two is quite remarkable, Clinton the Centrist and Bush the Radical. In a sense it is almost a "Republicans need not apply" so in total I think you also miss the point. It is a politcal party bias. 90% of these media people vote Democrat and that is what creates the problem.

I'll add that the MSM suffers the same problem as Harry Ried (who I personally know by the way, lovely fellow). It is all quite simple, media bias is not so much about policy as it is about political power and who gets credit or blame. To borrow from another cliche... It's the Party Stupid!

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 12:33 AM

SIMON:"Prominent among them was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who was then shown advocating those same private accounts only a few short years ago."

No, that's not true. Reid was agreeing with Clinton, who wanted to set aside some of projected budget surpluses to shore up SS. A small part of that would be used to buy stocks and bonds. No private accounts.

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 4:06 AM

BALLARD:"Because it's illegal for the government to actually hire a PR outfit to push legislation."

LOL - ever hear of Ketchum, Armstrong Williams?

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 4:10 AM

TERRYE:"I just wish the Dems would stop scaring old people and come up with a plan of their own."

I wish Bush would stop lying about SS going "flat broke."

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 4:14 AM

SIMON:"Of course, the world now knows what Greenspan hath decreed. Is he right? Beats me. But I'd trust him over Harry Reid in a New York minute. "

Okay, Greenspan said to switch over to adjustable rate mortgages. Think that's a smart move?

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 4:16 AM

Steve J,

Sesame Street has a good short piece that explains how bills become law. I'm certainly not sure that you will be able to follow it but perhaps its worth a try. Make sure you understand how to rewind before starting because it will probably take several viewings.

It is against the law to use public funds to push legislation while it is before Congress, once Congress passes legislation it is called "law" and there is no prohibition concerning funding public awareness programs concerning the law.

I wish Roger had a function that allowed the use of crayon in replies to help in clarifying responses for the challenged.

Btw, Steve - if you grabbed a variable at the time Greenspan recommended to do so your interest rate savings would have been substantial. With the average mortgage turning over in less than seven years and the availability of five year locks on variables someone of average intelligence should have done quite well. Sorry, if you didn't. That "average intelligence" bit can be a real stumbling block.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 17, 2005 5:55 AM

What Rick Ballard said: Greenspan observed that many people who knew that they wouldn't be the owner-occupier of their house for more than 5-7 years nevertheless bought 30-year-fixed mortgages when interest rates were heading for all-time lows. It doesn't take much thought to see how silly this is. I suspect that the problem is that the people buying 30-year-fixeds were taught to buy 30-year-fixeds by their Depression-era parents. A great many of us have gotten a lot of extremely conservative financial advise that doesn't fit modern circumstances from our Depression-era parents. The trick is not to throw timeless valuable advice out with the 1930s-specific advice.

Posted by: Paul Snively at February 17, 2005 7:59 AM

OT question. Who is the ed.? Is it your alter ego Roger? or does someone else have the ability to interject? If so, who is that person?

Just wondered for awhile now. This post seem to actually have comment response in it between the ed and Roger which brought the question to mind.

Posted by: Loren at February 17, 2005 9:19 AM

Roger, you just got OWNED on this subject by Josh Marshall.

Are you intentionally getting the facts wrong, or are you just not doing your research?

Nice try. Best stick to writing mysteries.

Posted by: Dave J. at February 17, 2005 9:37 AM

Steve J.

I traded my 30 year fixed mortgage in for a 4.5% 15 year fix, I don't know as the Resident Financial Advisor did I make the right decision? Geez, I am a multi-millionaire so should I just have paid the sucker off? I mean, do I really need the interest to deduct from my taxes? Maybe I should have kept my higher 30 year loan so I could have more interest to deduct from my taxes?

Question Steve J.... Is Social Security in true trouble? Many of my fellow liberals like to say that it will still retain 70% of it's ability to pay out so it is not that bad. As one successful in business, to me numbers like that mean it is headed for one obvious end... BANKRUPTCY! Then again I have never had to declare bankruptcy so maybe I don't know what I am talking about? Like Rick Ballard I somewhat share his contempt for people that speak as more knowledgeable then justified and skew examples with such prejudice.

Keep in mind that until this year I had always voted Democrat and to make me all the more evil I am a Pro-Israel Jew (NEOCON!). I do personally know Harry Reid, in fact very well. I know his position on this, he thought it in grave danger. While it is true Clinton and Reid desire the Government to manage the Personal Social Security Accounts, that is a shallow diversion, the real point is that Social Security was acknowlegded as in trouble by Clinton and Reid and like most moderate Democrats, he is becoming a "National" Democrat, or in other words he is becoming a partisan liberal, it must be something in the water here in Washington. It is ruining the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 10:02 AM

Roger,

Commenter SDN covered Clinton's attempt to get the government's camel nose under the security market's tent at 3:06 PM. If the government controls an asset then an individual doesn't own it any more than they own a government promised benefit. I don't regard the current proposal as meeting the full ownership test but it is heading in the right direction whereas Clinotn's plan just involved a different colored serf's collar - which is why Steve J and Joshie love it.

The ability to manipulate markets while claiming to "protect" us has long been a Dem dream. May it always remain so.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 17, 2005 10:06 AM

Dave J.

Josh Marshall owns nobody and certainly not Roger. As far as saying to Roger... "Nice try. Best stick to writing mysteries". I ask do you have a real point to make or do you just like to make cute coments? YOU SAID NOTHING!

Roger's comment section is known as one of the more thoughtful and intelligent in the whole blogosphere. The only possible success of your shallow comment is to perhaps tarnish that reputation. Fortunately shallow people usually don't last here.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 10:12 AM

Roger,

You dismiss the correction as if it was a minor point, but it invalidates your entire article.

Besides, even if your points had been valid, who cares? Partinsaship is the nature of this business. I'm sure I could come up with egregious republican flip-flopping based on politics, but why bother? It happens all the time, on both sides. Besides, you'd probably dismiss it as a 'partisan attack' or something.

Republicans have the higher moral ground? Democrats are more consistent? Republicans are great? Democrats are greater? Republicans are ruthless? Democrats are sneaky?

Whatever, it's all politics. And if you buy it, you're a dupe. And if you publish it, you're a partisan hack.

Posted by: miguel at February 17, 2005 10:20 AM

Roger,

I think the distinction between Clinton's plans and the Bush plan is indeed "one to get all fevered about", and Josh discusses it frequently:
Investing the entire SS fund in the stock market, as Clinton wanted, maintains _defined benefits_. The Bush plan would convert _defined benefits_ to _defined contributions_. That is the reason for most opposition to his plan.

Posted by: Paul F. at February 17, 2005 10:26 AM

Correction: Clinton, obviously, didn't want the entire SS fund invested in the market - only part of it. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Paul F. at February 17, 2005 10:47 AM

Thanks for the discussion. Social Security is a great topic.

I'm 56 and opposed to what I have been hearing from President Bush. One might say, "Oh, you have nothing to worry about because you're over 55." Yes, I'm pretty old and I've seen Social Security come up in the news many times and I know one truth about it: The politicians will not undermine it so long as we all stick together and we're all in the same boat. Rather than get distracted on "private accounts," the best thing for younger workers is to stay in the traditional Social Security system.

IOW, allowing politicians to peel us off so that we have different interests will inevitably kill Social Security because the one thing thats saved it is the near universal popular support for a guaranteed old age benefit.

Posted by: JoanBasil at February 17, 2005 11:00 AM

Social Security will kill itself even if we do nothing. Too many retired people not enough young workers. Besides why should any of us have solidarity with a program that's a bad investment? The thing is: we do have different interests.

Posted by: lindenen at February 17, 2005 12:05 PM

Regarding the recently discovered vigor of Social Security: if someone could please refresh my memory, what was all that hubbub about Al Gore's lockbox way back when? And why have I had it drilled into me all life (I'm 42) that Social Security is actuarially unsound? Has Karl Rove been priming the pump for this since I was in my twenties??? His mad genius knows no bounds.

Perhaps we should re-frame the argument: Do we really want a national pension program? Or, do we want a program that guarantees seniors do not live in impoverishment? If what we want is a true social insurance program, people who don't need the benefits shouldn't get them - in other words, means-test the crap out of the program.

Of course, I'm coming from a perspective where Social Security has always been a boondoggle, politics insured it was never going to be fixed (and boy, ain't that the truth, Josh Marshall?), and thus people in my age cohort were going to be shafted, and that's that. If you actually came out and made it into actual social security, I could live with paying into it. If I'm in a position at retirement where I don't qualify, hooray for me. After all, I don't get mad paying my homeowners' insurance and then my house doesn't burn down.

Rather than get distracted on "private accounts," the best thing for younger workers is to stay in the traditional Social Security system.

No, the best thing for younger workers is to save, prepare for their own futures, and pray to their deity of choice they don't have to rely on the tender mercies of the government.

Posted by: Percy Dovetonsils at February 17, 2005 12:12 PM

Steve:

I have never heard the President say the system was going to go flat borke.

However, when I got home today there was a message on my answering machine. It was from some Democratic focus group. They say that Bush is going to cut benefits for people receiving SS [now] by about 50%. Now that is bs and their take on the whole thing is that there is not a SS problem whatsoever.

I would have called them back but the caller ID just said out of area. Man that pisses me off.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 12:30 PM

JoanBasil:

I'm the same age as you and the boat we're all sharing is sinking. When SS started there were 18 workers contributing for every receipient.
Today there are 3 workers for every one getting a
check. Every heard of a Ponzi scheme??

I don't want my children or grandchildren in the system as it currently exists. It's unsustainable. I don't want a cushy retirement at the expense of the next generation. I don't want a government whose sole function is to provide health and retirement insurance. You've been reading too many AARP brochures.

There has been a huge tranfer of wealth in the last 40 years and it has been from the young to the old. I don't want to be complict in this inequity and ,if you think about it, you won't either.

Posted by: vegetius at February 17, 2005 12:39 PM

JoanBasil:

There has been a huge tranfer of wealth in the last 40 years and it has been from the young to the old. I don't want to be complict in this inequity and ,if you think about it, you won't either.

Posted by: vegetius at February 17, 2005 12:39 PM

One other small point: the difference between the ideas that Clinton and Bush proposed, in addition to focusing on whose money was invested, was the transition cost. Telling the government to purchase index funds from the stock market instead of treasury bonds would have a significantly lower transition cost than in creating an entire investment program and setting up separate accounts for every individual in Social Security. One would involve a single purchase, made monthly, by a single treasury official. The other would involve hundreds of government workers, creating an entire infrastructure, and then "managing" these plans. That's why the transition costs of the Bush plan are several trillion dollars. Clinton's plan, by comparison, would have had only minimal costs to setup.

This is, in fact, why the Bush administration needs to cut benefits: to provide the funds to cover the high transition costs. I'm not sure why anyone should spend over $4 trillion to "rescue" a system that, on an infinite timeline, will only end up $7 trillion in debt. Why not just raise the payroll tax cap instead to $120,000 and things would be fine?

Posted by: district at February 17, 2005 12:44 PM

JoanBasil

Rather than get distracted on "private accounts," the best thing for younger workers is to stay in the traditional Social Security system.

I see Percy Dovetonsils somewhat beat me to the point, but I will also say that you sound like an elitist that knows what is best for all. As a former Democrat I understand the mindset. Bush is saying you have a choice, what's the problem with that? I'll tell you what the problem is... political power.

Republicanism is about localizing power and Democrats are about centralizing such power. Bush is saying do you wish but as a businessman I can tell you what even 10% (less then what we take) set aside through the worst of markets over a lifetime would bring an individual, a hell of alot more than Social Security brings now. Democrats can preach the sky is falling when it suits them and there is little or no problem when that suits them but one point remains, we will never go back to 70-90% top tax rates and we will never get rid of Social Security, somewhere in the middle are cries and desire for Social Security to be merged with our desire for freedom and self determination to at least have some control over what is rightfully ours to begin with.

Much has changed and as a former Democrat I won't hold my breath as I know better than such wishful thinking as to think Democrats have much learned. Democrats have continually been on the wrong side of history since Vietnam and after selecting Howard Dean to head the DNC they show little evidence they have learned the most valuble lessons. I have learned one lesson, to quit betting against Bush. His desire to reform Social Security is indeed an up hill battle, but he usually wins such battles. Democrats cannot win being the Party of just say NO! The public realizes we have a bold and gutsy President willing to take on what most wouldn't and for that reason alone when push comes to shove he will get the benefit of the doubt from the public. As for me I continue to wait for the Democrats to grow up, but as I implied earlier holding my breath is not an option.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 12:46 PM

Nothing new here, Marshall points out the blind echo chamber of MISinfoprmation echoing throughout te right blogosphere. One takes the rumor and passes it on ad infinitum. The truth ot merit of a claims is lost in the prcess of yelling back and forth.

The private accounts are a tanker as proposed. More debt anyone? Because that's all you've given up so far. Grade--F.

Posted by: marky48 at February 17, 2005 1:01 PM

Roger, you must have been linked to by Marshall or another one of his acolytes. You are attracting some of the most interesting people here.

Posted by: Percy Dovetonsils at February 17, 2005 1:16 PM

TERRYE:"Steve:
I have never heard the President say the system was going to go flat borke."

BUSH: " And here's the problem: the -- as dictated by just math, there is -- the system will be in the red in 13 years, and in 2042 the system will be broke. "

Link

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 1:17 PM

Cool heads should be able to examine the numbers here...

So let me get this straight. You recite flimsy, distorted talking points straight from the RNC's Harry Reid Attack Squad playbook, then when confronted with the evidence, you call for cool heads to prevail? This is a typical ploy - sow division through misrepresentation, then lay the blame elsewhere.

The Democrats are right to oppose Bush's SS plan, because he, unlike Clinton, intends to dismantle it. For some reason, Republicans operatives deny this, even as the president uses code words like 'Ownership Society'. To quote the Cato Institute, this means that "individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts." We all know what that means - it means the government is out of the business of providing a social safety net. I'm not knocking this view - there's nothing wrong with being a libertarian and holding this view. Then we can engage in an honest debate about the role of government in people's lives, etc. At least be honest about your intentions. But the GOP knows very well that the vast majority of voters are pragmatic and not driven by libertarian ideology, and support the government's administration of SS as long as it works. That's why Bush is forced to misrepresent Social Security as going bankrupt despite the fact that his plan does nothing to address that problem even if it did exist.

That's also why we are seeing a constant shifting of terms and positions from Republicans. Are they calling it "privatization", "private accounts" or "personal accounts" today? Depends on what the latest focus group results are. Is SS a "crisis"? Or can you sell it better as just a "problem." The Republican Party has a position on the issue, they just aren't sure what politically-correct term will go over with the voters.

The really hilarious part of this whole mess is that regardless of what happens to Social Security, there will always be some form of government supported anti-poverty program for the elderly. If SS magically went away tomorrow, we'd be back to a 25% poverty rate and politicians and activists bemoaning our lack of respect. Doesn't the Bible exhort us to honor our father and mother, shouldn't we allow our elders to live out their last years with dignity, etc., etc.

On the topic of religion, I'm interested to see how economic conservatives fare against their socially-conservative allies, who clearly favor increased government intrusion into people's lives. The libertarian view is clearly at odds with Biblical passages such as "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ," and of course Cain rather famously denied being his brother's keeper, and thereby incurred God's wrath.

Posted by: Mike B at February 17, 2005 1:23 PM

JOSEPH (FORMERLY SAMUEL):"Question Steve J.... Is Social Security in true trouble?"

Yes, if we do nothing, after 2042 SS will only be able to pay 73% of currently promised benefits. IIRC, this declines to 68% by 2080.

One of my objections to the Bush "plan" is that it will cost 4.75 Trillion over the next 20 years and that is greater than the projected SS shortfall over the next 75 years.

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 1:24 PM

Mike B.
"Doesn't the Bible exhort us to honor our father and mother," ........Uhuh, I do; I just don't want to pay yours, that's your responsibility, not mine.

Posted by: vegetius at February 17, 2005 1:43 PM

VEGETIUS:"I don't want my children or grandchildren in the system as it currently exists. It's unsustainable. "

A simple solution to the projected problem is to raise the income ceiling to 200K.

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 1:49 PM

TERRYE:"However, when I got home today there was a message on my answering machine. It was from some Democratic focus group. They say that Bush is going to cut benefits for people receiving SS [now] by about 50%. "

50% is an exaggeration. Kevin Drum, I think, did post an analysis that showed that Bush's "plan" to reduce benefits by indexing to prices instead of wages would reduce benefits by 46% in 2050.

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 1:55 PM

Steve J., if your objection is to the Bush plan, come up with another plan.

I'm not ok with 15.3% of my income going into a ponzi scheme that's scheduled to run out about the time I'm supposed to be finally getting paid from it. That's not ok.

Come up with a plan.

Those who favor some kind of change may not have the votes yet, but we likely will.

Better to deal with it now, so people who can plan ahead, than 20 years from now when the required solution may be retroactive.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 1:55 PM

DISHMAN:"Steve J., if your objection is to the Bush plan, come up with another plan."

As I noted in another reply, the simplest plan is to raise the income ceiling to 200 K.

I would be interested in seeing what a flat tax on ALL income would be like. I think this would reduce the burden on wage earners and small businesses but this may have some bad macro-economic effect that I am unaware of.

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 1:59 PM

BALLARD:"The ability to manipulate markets..."

This seems to have been mastered by the brokerage houses, Enron and other corporations, the accounting firms, the insurance firms, the large banks, stock market writers, etc.

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 2:03 PM

Joseph (formerly Samuel): "Republicanism is about localizing power.."

Unless we're talking corporate power, in which case centralization is heartily endorsed.

Posted by: Steve J. at February 17, 2005 2:12 PM

Raising the ceiling does nothing to address the demographic problem. I did refer to it in my first comment, but not my most recent.

My gut feeling is that the problem is actually grossly understated somehow, though I can only point to the ratio of workers (3-1 and dropping) as justification for that.

That's before we even start talking about the prospect of Actuarial Escape Velocity, wherein people can effectively live forever. I don't think anyone wants to talk about it as being a problem, but it's a possibility to consider. I suspect that there's a point on that path where the courts might throw out Social Security on "Equal Protection" grounds.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 2:17 PM

Steve:

If the simplest plan is to do what Dems always do and just raise taxes then tell Reid to suggest than rather than flutter his elyelashes and say "Problem, what problem?"

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong but when Bush was talking about the system running out of sufficient funds, I thought he was saying it would only be able to pay out about 70 cents on the dollar. That is bankrupt, but you are saying that Bush is saying the plan will go flat broke in the near term and he has not said that. As usual you are cherry picking quotes to give a false impression.

Speaking of quotes I remember Dems saying we could not have a tax break when there was a surplus because of an impending Social Security crisis. I also remember Clinton addressing the problem in a state of the Union speech.

BTW, I work in the health care field and I know older people who are being told by Democrats that they will starve if Bush gets his way. That sucks. And I will tell you something else when FDR came up with this plan it was intended to help provide a safety net for old people. It was not meant to send people to college or to provide disability payments to young people or to provide money for a widow with children even if she has a degree and a good job. That was not its purpose and now more and more people are requiring more and more benefits from the system. I am not saying I want to cut people off but if we are going to extend these benefits then we need to be honest with people about the costs.

Bush's plan will give lower income people an oppurtunity to have something of their own. Perhaps Democrats could work with the WH to come up with the means to pay for such a system instead of scaring people to death.

I read about the system in Chile and they paid for the transition costs with a tax, and most of the people have been very satisfied with the system and it has been a real boon to the economy.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 2:18 PM

I think I've figured out why I consider the problem understated.

The entire conversation is talking about this in terms of money. Money is an abstract concept that we use in the exchange of goods and services. Talking about Social Security strictly in terms of money is not entirely valid because it contains an underlying assumption that there will be parties available to provide the goods and services at prices resembling today's.

This may not be a valid assumption. As the number of retirees increases, so will the competition for the goods and services that retirees desire. The market may not resemble the current market.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 2:34 PM

Dishman:

I think Greenspan was saying the same thing. This is not just about money. It is about people having something of their own.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 2:41 PM

For those with an interest in facts rather than sophistry this Social Security Administration Trustees Report provides a range of probable outcomes that uses the term insolvency rather than bankruptcy. A distinction based upon the fact that a sovereign government cannot discharge obligations through the legal means of bankruptcy.

For those interested in a solution that goes a bit farther than the current proposal, this Cato Institute site provides a wealth of data with which to confront the sophists.

Or, you can abandon yourself to the collective and allow Joshie and Krugman to fill you with false comfort as they plan a careful vacuuming of your wallet.

And finally, the Devil is said to have a knack with scripture. Using it to justify transferring a voluntary personal responsibility to a collective duty enforced through coercion is a rather good example of that knack.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 17, 2005 2:46 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the idea that the productive members of society (and their employers) should be responsible for financing the retirements of the formerly productive members was a bad idea from the get-go. And that said retirees are entitled to this subsidy regardless of their own personal wealth only compounds the problem. But that's just me.

Under current rules, I will be eligible for Social Security in 7 years and at the upper limit of benefit. The females on both sides of my family live for a long, long time. So let me say in advance to all the youngsters here (and their employers), thanks for the booty.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at February 17, 2005 3:10 PM

Greenspan- one a pay-as-you-go model, if we can fully fund, will work

I do not share his confidence.

That's still thinking of it in terms of money, without analyzing the underlying goods and services. Money in and of itself is meaningless. It's only that we believe it has meaning. If there's a dramatic change in the availability of the goods and services, then the meaning of the money changes (read, inflation).

Part of my concern is that I see the economy adjusting to the increased prevalance of Social Security through inflation, to the point where the economic impact of the benefits is contained.

I fear that the value of benefits will be dramatically reduced by inflation, inflation caused by the benefits.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 3:14 PM

Hello Mr. Guru, first time poster.

Now, maybe we are getting off too a bad start but in your posts there seems to be a lot of that laziness that you mentioned earlier, or the case may be that you can care less if you continue to spread false information.

You realize your mistake on claiming Clinton and Reid where for Bush style privitization, yet somehow try to claim that the difference is minimal. Here you cannot be more wrong. The administration plan has millions of individual workers investing their payroll taxes, each assuming an individual risk and each individual ending up with different amounts depending on their investment choices + the current environment in Wall Street. Clinton wanted the GOVERNMENT to invest a portion of the trust fund in order to grow it in order to continue to give benefits out like in the current system.

It comes down to Clinton promoting the continuance of guaranteed benefits (like today) and Bush scraping that in favor of millions of private acccounts. A BIG difference.

Second outright falseness that seems to appear here: "Democrats see no problem".

We see no "crisis", we see no "bankruptcy" we see no prospect of a "flat-broke" SS as the president claims. We see no justification for a vast restructuring of the SS system due to such "severe" problem. What we do see is a problem that should be dealt with sooner rather than later - one that does not justify changing the structure of SS - and that some fixes can and should be made. I challenge anyone here to find a quote that has a Democrat saying that there is no problem whatsoever in SS.

No, I don't mean quotes of them denying there is a crisis, I mean saying that the system is perfect and nothing at all is needed.

I often wonder if people know that they are repeating lies or if they just regurgitate the latest thing they saw or heard on some right wing radio station/website/news channel without checking its validity.

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 3:29 PM

It is funny that the debate is over whether Social Security is in crisis or not. Few seem to be debating HOW to fix it.

First, depending on how you look at the numbers, you can reach different conclusion. The one held by Democrats typically include money over-paid into the system which has been used to fund other programs. That money is not there and if it is going to be included in the calculation, the cost of repaying the government borrowing, should be included as well. When not included, Social Security runs out of steam quite a bit quicker.

Second, privatization or personal accounts, is not a solution to the problem. The great idea of ownership is separate from fixing the system before it runs out of money.

Thirdly, I am amazed that the Dems can so vehemently oppose SS reform since 1) there has been no real proposal from the administration 2) the Dems have absolutely no counter proposal. For the most part, they are just really bitter about losing the ownership of the Social Security program.

www.RightViews.com

Posted by: OJ at February 17, 2005 3:48 PM

Also I like to address this "whopper" and another case in point of people regurgitating - without varifying its validity - right wing talking points.

"I find it telling that when the Democratic leadership gathered around the likeness of FDR, they apparently did so without knowing that even he did not expect, nor intend, that SS would continue on a pay-as-you-go basis indefinitely."

Case-in-point right here

I know exactly where this began, Brit Hume and other privitization proponents. Here you see Brit Hume - a host on a news show when he said it (not a commentator, not in an editorial)- purposefully and shamefully misquoting FDR in an attempt to destroy the very man's legacy.

As Brit Hume said on February 3rd:

"In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, quote, “[b]Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,[/b]” adding that government funding, quote, “[b]ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.[/b]

Here's the whole FDR quote with all parts in context:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, [b]voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.[/b] It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which [b]ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.[/b]

What does this mean?

FDR says that 3 things should be established

1) an old age pension for those already too old to be able to pay into the SS system to be paid by the states and the federal government

2)Social Secrutiy as it is today: cumpolsory contributory aanuities which in time would be "self supporting system for the young and for [b]future generations[/b]"

3)3rd: voluntary individual accounts.

The old age pension (1) would be replaced by the "self-supporting annuities" plan (ie Social Security). The voluntary accounts would not replace Social Security as Hume falsely claims

Guess what this is: TADA!!

The Social Security PLUS plans that the Democrats including Bill Clinton and Harry Reid have been proposing since the 1990's. You know, having the guaranteed benefit of Social Security plus in ADDITION having a private account to supplement you knowing that if anything goes wrong with your private account the retiree will always have his guaranteed benefit to fall back on and ensure they do not fall into poverty.

You guys are clueless!! And you don't even bother to check your talking points!

That's not even the worst part, now there's the issue of Brit Hume:

Hume in his quote and in his "analysis" gets this way wrong. He pieces together two unrelated parts of FDR's quote, adds the words "government funding" between them and TADA!! You make FDR argue against his own legacy.

The way this was done makes it very obvious that this was DELIBERATE on the part of Brit Hume. This man is a NEWS anchor on Fox News, yet he is guilty of purposefully misquoting to promote his OWN agenda and that of the president.

Shamefull, and shame to those who continue to spread this false trash.

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 3:59 PM

To Joshie-Poo's Pointy-Headed Legions:

Don't forget today's talking point memo...Alan Greenspan is a sell-out. It's easier to remember, doesn't involve numbers and uses shorter words.

And, when you all report back to Josh, be sure to ask him about the federal employee's retirement plan and its private accounts feature...you know, the one where the federal employee (including members of Congress) are allowed to invest a portion of their retirement in a private account with six mutual funds available to choose from.

See if Joshie can wire into the Democratic leadership and get the low-down on how their private accounts are working for them.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at February 17, 2005 4:24 PM

oyka1

Even if I take at face value your painting Fox's Hume to be the sneaky little FDR reputation ruiner you paint him to be, it would take him and other conservatives years to come close to equal the distortion originated by the MSM and Liberal Left. Conservatives have been making the more intellectualy honest arguements since Reagan and that is why they hold power and the Democrats don't, I wouldn't flatter yourself too much. It would take years of Republicans/Conservatives to catch up with the mispeaks and lies of the left.

That being said you have forwarded nothing to promote your cause for or against the partial privitization of Social Security. George Bush will as usual win this argument and while many will claim by slight of hand in truth Bush wins his arguements by taking them head on, I suggest Democrats do likewise.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 4:24 PM

DennisThePeasant, amen to your words, but then again Josh and the left won't admit publically that to them Congress is really a House of Lords and the Government the ruling elite. To these people all resources originate as the theirs and the government's to manage and control, of course that makes us subject to their good wisdom. I look forward to Dubya putting another deserving stake through their arrogant political hearts. I bet my money with Dubya.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 4:33 PM

oyka1:

Oh come off it.

Blaming this on Brit Hume is silly. And I am not a right winger.

I am 53 years old, I remember when they had to bail out Social security in the 80's. I remember when they started borrowing against the Social Security surplus in the 60's as well. It is not as if this is a subject that the country has never discussed.

Brit Hume's point is that FDR was not against private accounts, he never said that the plan Bush had was the same as FDR's. And so far the Dems are not pushing Clinton's plan, they are refusing to admit they even need a plan.

And speaking of clueless FDR did not come up with the cost of living increases or all the added benefits of the present day system. In fact in 1935 the life span of the average American male was 60 and the age at which he could get his benefits was 65.

I don't think Greenspan is clueless. He said the risk of doing nothing is riskier than this plan. My Dad died of cancer at the age of 54 in 1980. He had been sick for some time and nothing was left. My mother died at the age of 69. If my Dad had been able to pass something on to his family at his death it would have meant a lot to him.

This plan would make that possible, the only thing the Dems can say is that everything will go on just like it is...even when 40% of the population is getting a check from Social Security.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 4:35 PM

"oyka1

Haha Ha!!

In essence you are saying: Ok I guess your RIGHT about Brit Hume and other like Bennet and many in the rightwing-a-verse, are misquoting FDR in order to argue that he meant something that he DID NOT mean in order to help the privitizers case... But boo-hoo the left lies, yadda yadda.

So now we are clear that what class?:

FDR was not a proponent of replacing Social Security with private accounts. People like Bill Bennett, Brit Hume, and others are a bunch of lying propagandists who would twist history to promote thier agendas and in not veryfing this myself, I become their tool for spreading false propaganda.

And wher's the apology? Where's the retration and correction? Is Hume and his ilk going to announce his misdeed on his NEWS show (not opinion show, NEWS show)?

and how about this from DennisthePeasant:

"And, when you all report back to Josh, be sure to ask him about the federal employee's retirement plan and its private accounts feature...you know, the one where the federal employee (including members of Congress) are allowed to invest a portion of their retirement in a private account with six mutual funds available to choose from."

You guys kill me!! I assume you speak of the Federal Thrift Savings Plan?

Answer this:

Do people enrolled in this forfeit their Social Security benefits?

let me help you: No, they don't.

The Federal Thrift Savings Plan is a retirement account in ADDITION to Social Security, kind of like OH OH!: The Social Security PLUS plan that Democrats like Clinton and Reid and others (and many Dems NOW) have been proposing since the 1990's and that FDR suggested back in the 1930's.

What, are you trying to help me out or something?

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 4:42 PM

Dennis:

Ah, still picking on Joshie are we?

I would feel sorry for that poor boy if he did not deserve all the hell you give him. But he does.

Nope, not much chance that the members of Congress will end up living on $900 a month. No siree, they will have retirment accounts in the big bad private sector. No food stamps and subsidized housing for them.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 4:43 PM

oyka:

Understand this: social security is a benefit program, that is all. Payroll taxes are a tax, that is all. The government can stop either one anytime they want. This is not some sacred covenant.

Bush says he will be flexible, perhaps it would be more useful for Democrats to come up with an alternative plan to save social security down the road than to just oppose whatever Bush says for the sake of being partisan hacks.

A lot of people would prefer private accounts, maybe their desires should be takent into consideration.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 4:50 PM

This "joshie" is having the time of his life if you must know. I enjoy showing falsehoods for what they are to the people who spread them.

And BTW: I'm not against private accounts...in ADDITION to Social Security's guranteed benefit. I don't want Private accounts to REPLACE the guaranteed benefits of SS.

Let people make their choices with additional savings, but SS should always be there as the safety net (especially for poor and middle class people) to prevent them from entering poverty should something go wrong with their accouts.

We should be on the same page.

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 4:52 PM

oyka:

The federal plan allows federal people to take some of their payroll taxes and put the money into a private account. I know people who work for the government and they make a lot more off these funds than they do social security.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 4:53 PM

oyka:

get it through your head: there is no such thing as a guranteed benefit.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 4:54 PM

DtP,

Turned into a bit of a sissy, eh? (I mean, beside the boa and heels)

Now this guy rips the Little Lefties a new one. Well worth a read. There are other posts on the same subject.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 17, 2005 4:59 PM

oyka:

Nobody is saying that they are going to remove all the safety net and nobody is saying that the money can be invested in your brother in law's liquor store either.

Speaking of people not knowing what they are talking about there are far too many partisan Democrats out there acting as if Bush is going to let people die while they the great self appoiinted saviors ignore the oncoming train. As far as they are concerned not even Alan Greenspan knows what he is talking about.

I have been a Democrat all my life but more an more the party is just a knee jerk anti Republican club. Back in the 90's Clinton could have gotten Bin Laden but did not and to this day Democrats are blaming Bush for that and not themselves....now we are facing another looming problem and the Democrats are behaving the same way. They need to step up and be part of the solution.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 5:01 PM

Why we shouldn't care about what FDR thought about this stuff:

"An example of FDR's capriciousness was his foolish habit of personally setting gold prices. Believing, after he read George Frederick Warren's peculiar argument in his book "Prices," that the current gold price caused commodity prices to be what they are, he set about inflating the price of gold and, ipso facto depreciating the dollar. Having taken ownership of all gold previously in private hands, and having prior contracts specifying payment in gold revoked by Congress, FDR decided that the "correct" price for gold was $35 per ounce."

"Along the way, he would meet in his White House bedroom with Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and set that day's price for gold. One morning, FDR chose an increase of $0.21, and Morgenthau asked him why. FDR replied, "because three times seven is 21, a lucky number."* That's how the author of the New Deal pursued and implemented important economic policy decisions."

Posted by: lindenen at February 17, 2005 5:02 PM

the Devil is said to have a knack with scripture...

How nice, a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. Perhaps you'd like to follow up by explaining what sort of mental contortions are necessary to assert that a belief in brotherly love, altruism and compassion for one's fellow man is a distortion of the Bible, while the atheistic doctrines of Libertarians Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick represent a truer reading of Jesus' words.

Posted by: Mike B at February 17, 2005 5:02 PM

While I doubt President Clinton is a supporter of all of President Bush's proposals for Social Security, his 12/3/02 speech to the DLC sure sounded like he was at least open to the idea of personal accounts for social security.

I can't speak for Sen. Reid, and I don't doubt that Mr. Marshall is correct in his description of USA Accounts and the Clinton's proposals in the '90s. BUT, if nothing else, President Clinton's 2002 comments don't give you the idea he holds the same doomsday fears about personal accounts that we are currently spreading from the DNC.

Here's the pertinent quote:

"If you don't like privatizing Social Security and I don't like it very much, but you want to do something to try to increase the rate of return, what are your options? Well one thing you could do is to give people one or two percent of the payroll tax, with the same options that Federal employees have with their retirement accounts; where you have three mutual funds that almost always perform as well or better than the market and a fourth option to buy government bonds, so you get the guaranteed social security return and a hundred percent safety just like you have with Social Security. ... You can't just attack the other guy's ideas unless you have something to say."

Here's the link to the Speech which is currently achived at the Clinton Foundation Website:
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/120302-sp-dlc.htm

Posted by: GideonUNC at February 17, 2005 5:09 PM

So Terrye...your telling me that my dad has NOT been recieving his checks these past few years, nor have the other millions of people?

My dad does contract work alongside me to supplement his SS security because it was NEVER MEANT to be the sole source of retirement income for seniors. It was meant to be supplemented by other savings and pensions and retirement accounts. SS is only meant to be the safety net between a retireree and poverty should that be insuficient or something goes wrong with them or if they simply (as is the case with poor Americans) are not able to accumulate savings due to day-to-day realities. Unfortunately many have only SS, but we should be THANKFULL that they at least have that safety net. To transform this system is to destroy that vital safety net (and introduce risk where there should be none) of SS.

What is the big fregin problem?

What's wrong with Social Security as the net, along with private accounts to supplement it?

Its purely ideological on you guys's part. You hate safety nets, conservatives have hated SS since its inceptions, and you guys want to get rid of anything which in your head resembles "socialism". Is that not it?

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 5:09 PM

Mike B,

Point to the scripture that that promotes coercion by government agency as a means of fulfilling personal responsibility. "We all must rob Peter to pay Paul" isn't a verse in any translation I've seen. Nor has there been any reference whatsover on this thread to the names you interject. Is mind reading a sideline to strawman construction?

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 17, 2005 5:10 PM

"So far, so good", he said, as he passed the 32nd floor.

This conversation has changed my opinion on the subject. I'm now leaning strongly towards Bush having understated the problem. That is, I believe that the current projections of SS payments and retirement accounts will be significantly larger than the supply of goods and services. There are two ways to match the supply of cash against the supply of goods and services, inflation and rationing.

I see two choices:
1) Reduce the number of people who can receive retirement benefits (raise the age, means testing, capability testing, rationing)
2) Let inflation wipe out an equivalent portion of savings

PSAs may help encourage people to work longer. There might be some benefits there under choice 1. It would probably allow some more flexibility in the system. By separating some of the benefits from inflation indexing, it might be enough to prevent hyperinflation.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 5:14 PM

oyka1

George Bush is the first Republican I have ever voted for, I believe the same is true of Terrye and probably half of the people who post here. If your intent is to please yourself with your, "Touched you last... your it!" type arguments then as Roger would say... "Hooray for you!" As usual these days my former compadres on the left are not aquiting themeselves well. Whose minds have you changed? Again if what you say is all you have to offer then I bet my millions on Dubya. The left pretending to champion straight talk to me is like people championing Al Capone as a humanitarian that opened up soup kitchens during the Depression in Chicago. True, he did open the soup kitchens, I'll let others determine who the good guys are. Keep listing people like Hume as shameful, but if one looks up the term in a dictionary they will more likely find a picture of Dan Rather. I voted for every Democrat from Carter to Gore, your spin means nothing to me. Give me some ideas and not charactor level demeaning, again you will lose this agrument but I am sure dissapointment is something you are getting used to, try to transfer the misery all you want, I am over that.

The left can't even properly celebrate freedom being brought to other nations. Saddam was a way worse tyrant than that Serb "Slobo", yet that was OK. Have fun in the wilderness I hope you find yourself, but realize before you try to correct former liberals (I actually still consider myself a liberal) like Roger or myself and half the commenters here you must show the same thoughtfulness and ability to set aside knee-jerk tendencies you clearly show. It is interesting that many the supposed prominent "Right Wing Blogs" are run by Democrats (Instapundant, Roger L. Simon, Little Green Footballs). It is amazing the dust a heretic can kick up, but as I said we have all thought like you and lived like you, have you done likewise? Shallowness can't properly stand up against people who have finally become intellectually honest enough to support that which is right regardless what Party they represent.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 5:14 PM

It won't be broke at all. That year, 2042, is the break even point instead of the surplus we have now. It's all bogus propaganda to subsidize the banking lobby. The bill will go to you nice folks.

Cheers!

Posted by: marky48 at February 17, 2005 5:16 PM

So Terrye...your telling me that my dad has NOT been recieving his checks these past few years, nor have the other millions of people?

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 5:17 PM

What's wrong with Social Security PLUS?

It has private accounts and the freedom to choose your stocks and bonds. The worker would "own" his accounts I assume. Its what you want is it not.

Oh wait, except that SS itself will remain a defined-benefit program...SO screw that idea.

Even though it has EVERYTHING I want...screw it because it does not destroy that ugly vestate of rampant FDR-Democratic "Socialism" that I've indoctrinated myself to hate kneejerk all my life.

Who's being the ideologues here and who has the open mind?

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 5:18 PM

Yeah and fear made them drink the kool-aid. Whose fault is that?

Posted by: marky48 at February 17, 2005 5:18 PM

Even though it has EVERYTHING I want...screw it because it does not destroy that ugly vestate of rampant FDR-Democratic "Socialism" that I've indoctrinated myself to hate kneejerk all my life.

I believe your characterization of the people here says everything that needs to be said about you and your grasp of who you're talking to, Oyka1.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 5:22 PM

Dishman

I believe your characterization of the people here says everything that needs to be said about you and your grasp of who you're talking to, Oyka1.

I'll file that in my "No Shit Sherlock" folder.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 5:25 PM

Its funny I keep being lectured about being knee-jerk anti Bush, yet I've yet to show I was knee jerk. For God's sake, I said I support Private account for retirement, of course I said that only in ADDITION to Social Securities current structure, not TO REPLACE current SS.

I'm dealing with a bunch of ideologues who are lobbing accusations calling me the ideologue "lefty" when I am the only one who seems to have an open mind to ideas.

Amazing! And funny!

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 5:26 PM

"For God's sake, I said I support Private account for retirement, of course I said that only in ADDITION to Social Securities current structure, not TO REPLACE current SS."

There's your problem right there.

You've made it into an either/or which it is NOT.

Bush's plan (well, there isn't ONE plan, anyway, he proposed THREE so you can pick and choose) does not REPLACE SS with Private accounts, it's replaces PART of SS with Private accounts.

Having private accounts in ADDITION to what we have now, does nothing to solve the solvency problem down the road.

Posted by: Syl at February 17, 2005 5:33 PM

oyka1

Characterize yourself and others all you want, your snarky demeanor tells the true story. Most people on the left think they are open minded, that is a main point of weakness. I am a liberal North Eastern Establishment Jew, I live in Washington and indeed know better. Keep flattering yourself but this much is obvious, you know not the audience you are talking to when addressing this group. Ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 5:36 PM

oyka1

Add Syl to that list of Democrats I mentioned, this is not a right wing group. Thoughtfulness will get you somewhere.

Posted by: Joseph (formerly Samuel) at February 17, 2005 5:39 PM

Joseph, you seem alright.

But you just went into a tirade about soup kitchens and Al Capone in which I haven't the slightest idea how this is relevant to me or my arguments.

And now I "spin", tell me Joseph, how did I spin?:

Did I not show Brit Humes quote, did I not then show the 'whole' quote to show the clipped and edited Hume quote in context. Did I not then explain what FDR actually said, as opposed to what Hume and others like Bill Bennett or people say he said (that FDR envisioned SS being replaced by private accounts).

What you are doing is seeing that I have the point here so you just start lobing accusations and insults about the war this, slobodan that...hey lets forget about this right now.

So since you don't want to talk about SS, what do you want to talk aboout...flowers...or how about those Raiders?

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 5:40 PM

oyka:

I am telling you that you do not have a mystical connection with FDR. I am telling you that social security is a government program that is paid for by a tax, there is not any guarantee. I can remember when that tax was small, right now the deduction is almost as large as my income tax.

I spend my days with people on social security and medicare and medicaid and SSI etc. It is what I do. I know one extended family that is receiving tens of thousands of dollars in benefits and direct payments and they have not by any stretch of the imagination paid that kind of money into the system. And some members of this family are younger than I am. And my generation is getting ready to retire soon. The fabled baby boomers are going to go on social security.

Keep in mind that Republicans like to win elections, if they believed that this idea was going to leave millions of people to fend for themselves, would they support it? I just hope that Democrats do not create a false sense of security here just to put the screws to Bush and then in a decade or so have to give the people the bad news.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 5:40 PM

This "joshie" is having the time of his life if you must know.

So are you dressing your dog up in cute little sweaters, too?

I assume you speak of the Federal Thrift Savings Plan?

Yes

Answer this:

Do people enrolled in this forfeit their Social Security benefits?

let me help you: No, they don't.

I'm well aware of that. That wasn't the point. The point was that when designing a supplemental retirement program for themselves, the Federal Government didn't think twice about whether offering a substantial private account feature that accomodated personal choice and the assumption of risk levels based on personal preferences in investing for retirement.

What, are you trying to help me out or something?

Yes, we are. You're making it very difficult, though.

And by the way, how's Josh's big revelation from last week going? You know, the one where he discovered the George W. Bush was going to deliberately cause the general fund to default on the 2 trillion in U.S. treasuries owed the trust fund, so that Social Security could be bankrupted? I kind of missed the massive panic in the worldwide bond and financial markets that Joshie's big disclosure caused. Has Josh given a time table for the commencement of the panic and resulting worldwide economic crash? Or is he busy right now?

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at February 17, 2005 5:44 PM

oyka:;

Leave Brit Hume alone. He did not lie to you.

Now if he had come up with some handwritten letters from FDR that he swore were for real and which said plain as day that he did think it was ok for people to make money the way he did, by investing it and it turned out these letters were forgeries, then you could bitch.

For years I have been listening to the media which is overwhelmingly biased for the Dems make snarky half true little comments and it was ok fine with liberals.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 5:49 PM

Perhaps I've been a little mean to you guys but this "joshie" (is that not the pet name I was given I assume it was meant to be somehow demeaning) is only a little regretfull for my attitude.

As for the "I am a liberal North Eastern Establishment Jew" let me say:

One, I had no idea that a liberal would willingly call himself in essense "the elite", and another thing I had no idea a leftist would go on to say that the left doesn't have any open minds.

The Left has plenty of open minds open to ideas as does the Right.

At this moment, whether Left or Right, I haven't seen that many who have been open and that's irrespective of what side of the spectrum they're on, its in respect to Social Security.

So please, cut the fake high-road routine

I'm out, but I'll be back later

Posted by: oyka1 at February 17, 2005 5:51 PM

I just got an email from AARP...now add that to the phone call from the Union..it seems that the big guns are out to stop this. They want more not less they say.

I would hate to see the day when young people hate the old.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 6:06 PM

The first time I used "Joshie" in this thread, I was speaking about Josh Marshall. You were the one who picked it up and ran with it. If you find it demeaning, I suggest you refrain from calling yourself "Joshie".

This really isn't that hard.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at February 17, 2005 6:10 PM

I notice he bugged out without answer my question about Josh's big revelation. There's a surprise.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at February 17, 2005 6:11 PM

Dennis:

You will confuse the poor boy.

Did you hear the Congressman {I forget his name} who said that Greenspan's support for Bush's plan made him want to vomit?

I kid you not.

Posted by: Terrye at February 17, 2005 6:14 PM

I don't think any of us can really be characterized as knee-jerk supporters of Bush. We're generally willing to give him an ear, and agree with some things he says. I don't think there's anyone here I haven't seen disagree with him at least once.

The furthest I'll go in support of PSAs is that one of the "failure modes" of SS doesn't apply to PSAs. That failure mode would be if SS were both producing inflationary pressure and indexed to inflation, it would feed back on itself in whatever the indexing time was. There might be political pressure to shorten the indexing period to "keep up with inflation", which would only increase the problem.

At least with PSAs, the problem would be partially controlled by inflation reducing the value of the accounts until the economy was back in balance.

That's my thinking, anyway. It's probably flawed, possibly deeply. Salt to taste.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 6:19 PM

"We see no "crisis", we see no "bankruptcy" we see no prospect of a "flat-broke" SS as the president claims."

"Through the end of 2077, the combined funds have a present-value unfunded obligation of $3.5 trillion." (SSA Trustees Report)

I'm not sure I know how to open myself to idiocy.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 17, 2005 6:20 PM

I would hate to see the day when young people hate the old.

That would be bad. It brought "Logan's Run" to mind.

Posted by: Dishman at February 17, 2005 6:25 PM

Well they could aways tell us we can't collect until we are 75.

no I don't always agree with Bush, but I do think there is a problem here and it has been coming for a long time.

I would prefer the Democrats did their job and became part of the solution. It would seem to me that reasonable people should be able to find a compromise.