By Carolyn Winter and Roger Bybee
Posted at Democratic Underground
February 9, 2005
As the authors point out, our response to the Bush Social Security plans must be unified, and focused. If we get distracted by debating rates of return, etc. we will easily lose sight of the fact that Mr Bush’s true purpose of this proposal is the disappearance of Social Security. Just a cursory glance of his plan shows that this would be the only possible outcome. Additionally, any debate over any of his points lends a bi-partisan legitimacy to them. It will give the bushistas the cover they need to say “See, everyone is talking about major reform, but quibbling over the details.”
I’ve read that by raising the limit of income subject to the payroll tax to $200,000 from the current $90,000, the system will be sustainable for decades into the future. And why shouldn’t the more well off pay more to guarantee a dignified and secure retirement for this country’s workers, who after all, are the true creators of wealth in this country, as in any other country. Which, not wanting to go off on a tangent, is a good argument for rescinding Mr Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, and lift the burden from the shoulders of the working class. Especially since they have done nothing for the workers of this country, except add to the national debt, which of course must be paid off by the taxes imposed on wage income, since Bush’s cuts are all directed to investment income.
Social Security, as its name implies, is a social contract between generations of workers. This is what Mr Bush proposes breaking. And the most curious thing of all, is that of ALL those proposing these drastic cuts and changes, not one of them will be depending on Social Security when they retire from a lifetime of labor. They have no stake whatsoever in that program.
As the authors say:
Our message to the public must underscore that the Bush plan is first and foremost a program for major benefit cuts, with the private accounts used to disguise the real aim of dismantling Social Security. We can assume that this strategy is only a part of the right-wing agenda to strengthen the leverage of Corporate America over the workforce by increasing economic insecurity.
We need to remind our Democratic friends that Bush has no plan to compromise, and neither should they. Plain and simple, propose a raise in the income level, and lets see what that does for the future of the system. Since there is no immediate crisis, as many, such as Paul Krugman of the NY Times, have pointed out, we can take the time to place fixes and tweaks on what is existing. Both Chile and Britain have tried privatization with results that are, shall we say, less than acceptable. In fact, the British are looking at our current system to fix the mess that’s been created there by Margaret Thatcher’s changes to their public pension plans.
We also need to remind both Republicans and Democrats that are up for re-election in 2006, that they are, in fact, up for re-election in 2006. They need to be made to understand that any attempt to provide any political cover for the bushistas would mean the end of their careers.
And finally, not to distract, but just as a “real-world test” to his proposal, since Jan 1, 2001, the stock markets haven’t done so well. As of the closing bell on Friday Feb 4, 2005, the Dow is down 0.656%, the Nasdaq is down 15.538%, the NYSE is up 3.914%, and the S&P is down 3.438%. Using these indexes as a guide, the average return over the past 4 years is -3.929%. So how in the hell can Mr Bush stand up in front of the American people, and say that the “markets” will make up any difference. Anyone retiring during a period such as this, and depending on their “private accounts” for their retirement financial security would be just plain fucked.
No comments:
Post a Comment