Well, if it ain’t a left-wing writer in a left-wing paper saying a left-wing thing about Bush. Krugman, writing in today’s New York Times, doesn’t think that Bush’s key reforms to Social Security will offer any “social security”. He says that the Bush plan would dismantle Social Security entirely (ahem). So what exactly is Bush proposing, and what are the counter-arguments?
Bush sees the inadequacy of the system as it now stands. Doing nothing to fix Social Security will cost Americans, their children and grandchildren an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees. In 2018, the government will begin to pay out more in benefits than it takes in in revenue, and shortfalls then will grow larger with each passing year. By 2042, when workers in their mid-twenties begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt unless something is done. During the 1950s, there were 16 workers to support every 1 beneficiary of Social Security. Today there are only 3.3 workers supporting each 1 beneficiary. By the time the youngest workers now entering the system turn 65, there will only be 2 workers supporting each 1 beneficiary. Today’s 30 year old will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age. The Social Security payroll tax, which was once 2%, is now more than 12%. Welcome to socialism.
But Bush has an idea. He sees how much more efficient and rewarding the capitalist free market is, and thinks Social Security could benefit from it. He wants to give people the option of taking the money they normally pay in Social Security payroll tax and paying it into a private personal account with much higher return, instead of it going into government coffers (and possibly never reappearing). Personal accounts would give people the opportunity to recieve higher benefits than the current system can afford to pay, provide ownership, choice and the opportunity for workers to build a nest egg for their retirement, with the option to pass it on to their spouse or their children. Personal accounts would provide Americans who choose to participate with an opportunity to share in the benefits of economic growth by participating in markets through sound investments.
Krugman doesn’t like it. In his socialist bones, it doesn’t feel right. So what are his arguments against? Well his first point is that it would do nothing to improve Social Security’s finances – a claim that is easily answered with a quick slap up the side of the head and a comment to the effect of, “You idiot!” If Social Security will not improve through changing it, it stands even less chance of improving with more of the same, either. He then goes on to do something I was ENTIRELY expecting: to dodge the issue completely by focusing on what he thinks the MOTIVE is, rather than give an answer as to what is wrong with Bush’s proposal.
He says the motive is… “Ideology. Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state … if you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.” And now we see that the whole point of his article was not to offer a valid critique of Bush’s Social Security proposals, but to simply preach to the converted NY Times readers his left-wing manure with no effort to say why he believes what he does.
And this is completely normal. What are the counter-arguments? There aren’t any! Lefties would get into horrendous trouble for saying what they really believe: that they don’t think people SHOULD have choices, that any measure made to give people more choice is wrong, that anything designed to give more power to the individual rather than the state is inherently a bad idea because individuals CANNOT BE TRUSTED! So they mask their arguments as much as possible to give the impression that it is clearly a bad idea, by the standards of whatever emotional socialist rhetoric that springs to mind.
My take on Bush’s proposals? A step in the right direction. It takes a step toward dismantling the whole infernal process to begin with – a process that essentially tells Americans that they cannot be trusted to manage their own finances and save for their own future – a process that places the state in that position of final authority – a process that puts Uncle Sam in a place of responsibility for ensuring that people, like good little children, behave themselves. I think the President’s ideas should be greeted with enthusiasm by anyone who thinks that individuals should be free to make their own choices.
Next: we need to object to the state forcing us to save ANY of our money for our retirement, if we don’t want to. That will come, once private personal accounts have been up and running for a while. Meantime – ask the right questions of people like Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who don’t trust you to make your own choices.
————–
John Wright
johnwright@softhome.net
WHILE YOU'RE HERE...