Goodbye New Deal; Hello Raw Deal

[dweller]

by Karen Dolan

In the wake of somewhat of an uproar from progressives, Democrats and even some Republican leaders, President
George W. Bush is now backing away from saying that Social Security faces a “crisis.” He has toned down the
rhetoric and now refers to a slightly less ominous significant “problem” when he refers to the system that keeps
millions of elderly Americans out of poverty.

Let’s get some perspective: Many economists, notably those at the Center on Economic and Policy Research and
the Congressional Budget Office, have made it clear that Social Security will remain sound, at least until 2052. Even
after that date, the program will still be able to pay out benefits at least equivalent, even adjusted for inflation, to
those being distributed today. Indefinitely. With no change whatsoever. The reality is that Social Security is the most
financially sound today than it has been since its conception 70 years ago.

Nor will the Baby Boomers’ retirement bankrupt Social Security. First, most Baby Boomers will expire themselves
before Social Security shows any signs of instability and second, Social Security cannot become “bankrupt.” Social
Security currently has a surplus of $150 billion held in bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States
government. Only in the case of the US defaulting on its bonds, would the program be “bankrupt.” Not only is this
scenario implausible, but the U.S. has never defaulted on its bonds, no one is suggesting that it will, and a
world-wide financial crisis would ensue if it were to happen.

So, why is this administration focusing on the issue, initially as a “crisis” and at least as a major “problem”?
Because the radically conservative powers-that-be see the opportunity to dismantle the New Deal that brought the
Democrats into power for many of the last 70 years. It’s part of this administration’s goal and ideology, to reverse the
New Deal and replace it with a system driven by the conservative ideology of privatization to support business and a
failed “trickle-down” economic theory. They wish to a shred the social safety net that has enhanced the quality of life
in our country for most of the 20th century. Privatization, even partially, of the Social Security program is a boon for
Wall Street that poses great risks and increases the likelihood of a fall into poverty for retiring Americans.

myth of crisis and manufactured fear and confusion

dp

[Petrushka]

1. Link not working. (eom)

[dweller]

3. link fixed...thx n/t

dp

[Pab Sungenis]

2. It's because neocons are ideologically bankrupt.

They don't stand FOR anything at all. If you don't believe me, ask one what they believe in.

They're against taxes.
They're against socialism.
They're against civil rights.
They're against counting the votes.
They're against regulation.
They're against....

You get the idea.

When you don't stand FOR anything, only AGAINST other things, you need to create "crises" to govern. You need an enemy of some kind. Otherwise, you'll never be able to articulate where you stand because you have nothing to be against. Not only is this harmful to the voters' opinions of you, but it can be harmful to your own health. Especially when you try to think and reason your positions.

Remember the conservative movement of the 1960's through the 1980's? It could all be summed up in one phrase. They were anti-communist. As Communism failed around the world, they morphed into being anti-big-government. When Clinton actually cut down on the bureaucracy of the Federal Government, they started morphing into being anti-gay. Now they have a new enemy: "terrorists." So they're anti-terrorist. And who can argue with that? (And of course, the correllary: "If I'm anti-terrorist and you don't agree with me on some obscure issue, you're FOR terrorists!")

That's why they need a Social Security "crisis." Because they can't honestly come out and say "we believe in taking money out of the secure trust fund created for it and giving it to our cronies on Wall Street." They have to make us think that they're "anti-bankruptcy."