Social Security Slam-Dunk [washington post]

[truthisfreedom]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15128-2004Dec20.html

Social Security Slam-Dunk



By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, December 21, 2004; Page A25



Why do I think that the Social Security crisis -- "the crisis is now," President Bush said recently -- is the domestic version of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Could it be that I am hearing the same sense of false urgency? Could it be that the predicted insolvency of the Social Security system is something other than -- yes -- "a slam-dunk"? I wonder.


My cynicism -- like yours -- has been earned the hard way. George Bush has a charming tendency to make up his mind first and then seek the evidence for his decision. This is how he went about deciding to go to war in Iraq -- telling Don Rumsfeld to produce a war plan in the days right after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, even though there was no evidence Iraq was responsible. It did not matter. Bush wanted war with Iraq, Bush got it -- and now we're stuck with it.

<snip>

Sooner or later, though, is not a crisis. But Bush needs a crisis -- just as he needed WMD -- to justify what he wants to do: radically overhaul the Social Security system. This is because he believes, as do all good conservatives, that the government should not do what private enterprise can do better and cheaper -- assuming, of course, that private enterprise can make us more comfy in our retirements than the government can. That's a big assumption, and there is precious little, aside from fervent ideology, to support it. If you believe that the market economy always performs best, take a look at the airline industry. It serves neither its customers nor its owners.

<snip>

[xray s]

1. Bush wants to do to Social Security what he's done to Iraq

If that doesn't make this country shudder nothing will.

[shanti]

9. yes....

time for some internal pain....now that he's esconced firmly in place for 4 years - what does he have to lose? :-(

[Cobalt Violet]

11. True, he wants to screw it all up.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Is there any way to get to the WaPo article without registration?

[Robbien]

4. use

www.bugmenot.com

[bling bling]

10. cool! thank you! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Paul Krugman has been saying this for months..if not years......

[Raster]

5. The main reason $hrubco and their moneymen want to "overhaul"

...Social Security is so they can get their hands on the trillions of dollars in the fund. Just think of all those juicy commissions the corporate banking and investment community will make. I've heard the figure of $20 billion dollars bandied around, and that's just the commissions.

Do you also know that *very quietly* the whitehouse also plans on confiscating funds from those accounts that do better than expected?

Before we "fix" Social Security, we need to (1) look at the track record for deregulation and privatization in this country (which is abysmal), and (2) look at other countries that have tried the same thing. Not a success amoung them, that is if you don't count the windfall for the financial whores. The only people who win during deregulation and privatization are the rich and powerful. The common woman and man takes a beating each and every time.

Here's a thought, instead of "fixing" Social Security, why not quit raiding and stealing from the fund. Congress has been "borrowing" from Social Security for years. Now's the time to stop!

And finally, look at the bush* track record. These fuckers have failed MISERABLY at EVERYTHING they've touched. Do you really want these bastards to get their hands on Social Security?

[Born Free]

15. more interested in fixing "Wall Street"

They fear the economic disaster if foreign money starts leaving Wall Street for better profits in other countries such as China, so they need to use America'a working class retirement funds to keep it afloat. Foreign countries own so much power thoughout Wall Street America we are no longer economically secure. They hope to use the retirement fund to buy back some of America that was sold off for profit.

[Eric J in MN]

6. After that headline,

I was glad to see the text is an ironic reference to George Tenet's slam-dunk.

I talk about Tenet's "slam dunk" on wmd at my blog:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_04_29_putting_slam_dunk_wmd_in_context.asp

[Robbien]

7. The headline worried me also

I feared it meant the fix was in. Nice to see the meaning is the same slam dunk Tenet's slam dunk was.

[caligirl]

8. Trust a robber barron? No way, Bush is their to make himself

even richer than he is now.

[0007]

17. ......and his Wall Street buddies

If your not a defence contractor and if your not rich or a stock broker, your fucking screwed!

[liberalhistorian]

12. Repukes have been trying to

get rid of social security for seventy years now, since the haves can't stand the fact that millions of older people have been saved from total poverty and terrible suffering by it. Unfortunately, it looks like they may finally get their chance, since they were voted in by the very same people who benefit, or who will benefit, the most from social security and who are too dense to realize that Democrats are the ones who fought for and implemented it in the first place.

[SariesNightly]

13. Faux crisis

This is a manufactured lie, overblown out of proportions to make everyone afraid and ultimately to fall in line.

http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_seetheforest_archive.html#110333772098889825

[JHB]

21. And they've been at it for a long time

See this article from 10 years ago(!):

The Myth of Social Security's Imminent Collapse
By: Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer, July/August 1995

Thirty years ago, when Barry Goldwater proposed making Social Security voluntary, he was dismissed as a lunatic. Now, however, the radical transformation of Social Security--essentially its privatization--is the consensus among the political class and the pundits who serve them.

The strategy of the privatizers is proving quite successful. Sow doubts about the future solvency of the system. Chip away its near-universal political support by taxing benefits of "affluent" retirees, periodically lowering the definition of affluence. Encourage the "affluent" retirees of the future to provide for themselves, because of the system's wobbliness. And eventually turn the public pension system into welfare for the elderly poor--an easy target for cuts--while leaving the middle class and rich to fend for themselves. This isn't only happening in the U.S.; it's happening around the globe.
------
http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/henwood.htm

[rainbow4321]

14. GAO: Medicare becoming bankrupt

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/12200000aaa046f1.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News



WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- Experts say Medicare, the government provider of health insurance for 41 million elderly and disabled U.S. citizens, is nearing a crisis.

Congress' Government Accountability Office projects Medicare will exhaust its hospital-care trust fund by 2019, more than 20 years before Social Security becomes endangered, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The government's Medicare bills will add up to $27.7 trillion over the next 75 years, the GAO said. Social Security, by comparison, has only a $3.7 trillion liability during the same period.

"The Medicare problem is about seven times greater than the Social Security problem, and it has gotten much worse," said Comptroller General David Walker, head of the GAO. "It is much bigger, it is much more immediate, and it is going to be much more difficult to effectively address."

[Raster]

20. If Medicare is in such a crisis, Congress should pass laws allowing

Medicare/Medicaid/Mediwhatever to negotiate drug prices with the drug companies. And do be fair, only drug companies which receive or have received ANY TYPE of government aid or subsidies would be required to negotiate. Oh wait, that's EVERY FUCKING DRUG COMPANY!!! That's the dirty gargantuan secret: drug companies falsely wail that they need their huge profits to offset their R&D efforts, neglecting to mention that in MOST cases their R&D efforts are already offset by heavy government subsidization. The R&D expenses of very few drugs are actually borne by the drug companies.

I guess this is the perks you get when you are the number one industry represented by lobbyists to virtually EVERY congressperson. I guess these are the perks when you are the number one contributor to the repub and the number one contributor to $hrubco.

[Guaranteed]

16. An effective comparison to make. nt

[elderly man]

18. He is not a good conservative!

The conservative principle that if free enterprise can do it better
and cheaper than the government,then free enterprise is the way to
go,seems reasonable to me.
However,such is not the case with the prescription drug bill.
I currently have a private plan for prescription drugs,with which
I am satisfied.I do not need or want the government plan.
However next year I will be coerced by the government to take the government plan.
The government plan which I will be forced to adopt next year,
will cost more and pay less than the private plan I now have and
would like to keep.
Of course the drug companies will make much more under the Bush plan.
I don't believe the Bush plan can be called conservative.
Any suggestions on what it should be called?

[rodeodance]

19. Bush wants to elimate SS-he is settling for private accounts for now!!

[Moderator]

22. This is a dupe, please continue the conversation here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x93037

I hate to lock this with so many posts, but it is the timing of the first post and not the replys that matter.