New York Times Editorial calls Bush on his Social Security lies

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?oref=login

January 10, 2005
For the Record on Social Security

Late February is now the time frame mentioned by the White House for unveiling President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. The timing is no accident. By waiting until then, the president will conveniently avoid having to include the cost of privatization - as much as $2 trillion in new government borrowing over the next 10 years - in his 2006 budget, expected in early February.

In this and other ways, the administration is manipulating information - a tacit, yet devastating, acknowledgement, we believe, that an informed public would reject privatizing Social Security. For the record:

The administration has suggested that it would be justified in borrowing some $2 trillion to establish private accounts because doing so would head off $10 trillion in future Social Security liabilities. It's bad enough that the $10 trillion is a highly inflated figure, intended to overstate a problem that is reasonably estimated at $3.7 trillion or even considerably less. Worse are the true dimensions of the administration's proposed ploy, which were made painfully clear in a memo that was leaked to the press last week. Written in early January by Peter Wehner, the president's director of strategic initiatives and a top aide to Karl Rove, the president's political strategist, the memo states unequivocally that under a privatized system, only drastic benefit cuts - not borrowing - would relieve Social Security's financial problem. "If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover transition costs for personal savings accounts" without making benefit cuts, Mr. Wehner wrote, "we will have borrowed trillions and will still confront more than $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This could easily cause an economic chain reaction: the markets go south, interest rates go up, and the economy stalls out."

At a recent press conference, Mr. Bush exaggerated the timing of the system's shortfall by saying that Social Security would cross the "line into red" in 2018. According to Congress's budget agency, the system comes up short in 2052; according to the system's trustees, the date is 2042. The year 2018 is when the system's trustees expect they will have to begin dipping into the Social Security trust fund to pay full benefits. If you had a trust fund to pay your bills when your income fell short, would you consider yourself insolvent? <snip>

[MichiganVote]

1. No WMD George Bush, No WMD. SS crisis? Hardly.

[papau]

2. I liked that they picked up on the idea that Gov Bond NOT worth ZERO in SS

Since there is no GOP answer to "If the trust fund's Treasury securities are worthless, someone better tell investors throughout the world, who currently hold $4.3 trillion in Treasury debt that carries the exact same government obligation to pay as the trust fund securities. The president is irresponsible to even imply that the United States might not honor its debt obligations. "

[ohioliberal]

3. * is such an ass

I think he goes to the extreme on EVERYTHING.

[Rican1]

4. The Times has learned their lesson

After giving him a free pass on Iraq

[ailsagirl]

5. I'm encouraged by the Times' speaking out... may it continue!!

[papau]

6. IT was also LOL - as Bush asserts a drug ends/cuts down Hospital Costs

the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says Medicare Part B (Doctors) problem 6 times that of SS, and the "free" Medicare (Hospital) problem is 3 times as big.

So Bush asserts it is time for SS to be fixed because he already fixed Medicares cost via the new unfunded drug benefit - because in Bush's mind that will really cut Medicare Doctor and Hospital costs - Bush saying "I recognize some of the actuaries haven't come to that conclusion yet,But the logic is irrefutable."

As an actuary I enjoyed that !!!! :-)

[pinto]

7. Yep, this year's WMD....manipulate information, "spin" a crisis, get it on

Faux News...count the Congressional votes.

Somehow, 'though, I don't think this one will play as well. Even folks who were moved by the WMD threats from the White House may look at this one twice. And think twice about what's needed for Social Security stability.

[urizenxvii]

8. I wish this had been above the fold

and page 1.

Along with the new Iraq 'it's a mess' estimates.

[UCLA Dem]

9. so many people who voted for that idiot will be screwed by this

this election shouldn't have even been close. all those stupid people, more concerned about who marries who than their own welfare in their old age.

i used to feel sorry for all those people, but i don't think i can any more. they got what they voted for.

[DemoVet]

10. Yeah, it's going to fall hardest on HIS voters

Good. Stupid is as stupid does.

[democratic wing]

13. Titanic situation

I wish you were right but if "they" gut SS many millions will suffer, regardless of party affliation. Like it or not,we're all on this sinking ship together.

[ktowntennesseedem]

14. I fear that you are right.

I also worry that the ship is sinking so slowly that no will notice declining benefits until the problem is beyond solving. The same folks who brought us Iraq will use the same smoke and mirrors and lies and distortions to make everyone think the ship is in no danger of sinking, then when sinking is inevitable, find some way to blame it on godless, unamerican liberals.

Welcome, democratic wing!

[democratic wing]

16. Hi,Knoxville Dem!

:hi:

[Tims]

11. The 2018 insolvency date may be correct

since he plans to spend the entire trust fund financing his wars and with no intension of paying it back. The Bush gang are looters, plain and simple.

[democratic wing]

12. Republican lies machine

Congresswoman Anne Northup representing the Third Congressional District of Kentucky offers this nugget of wisdom in her 2005 Congressional Questionnaire:

"Without changes,Social Security is projected to go bankrupt by the year 2042."

Oh! Really?

Mrs. Northup's contact information is on her web site for anyone interested in disputing her misinformation.

http://www.northup.house.gov/index.asp

[yardwork]

15. We can't count on SS to bring george down, unfortunately

The little chimp will drop this like a hot potato as soon as it becomes obvious he doesn't have the support - and he won't.

In fact, I half-suspect that this is being launched as a diversionary tactic. They'll "graciously" drop the SS initiative and be able to say that they "bowed to public opinion" (and the evil liberals) and then they think they'll get a free pass on their next nefarious plot.

Or one that is currently in the works that nobody is telling us about. I wonder what it is?