It should be obvious by now that Bush and the Rovians don’t give a rat’s ass about the poor – except when they can be used as decoys to funnel federal money into their religious patronage machine or provide the appropriate background for a few quick photo ops. As Matt Yglesias and others have already pointed out, their Social Security plan only “aids” low-income retirees if you ignore the trillions in general revenues that still would have to be poured into the trust fund to subsidize Shrub’s precious private accounts. Yet redirecting those same revenues into the existing system (without the private accounts) would leave all retirees better off than what Bush is proposing. If Robin Hood had tried pulling a bait and switch scam like that, I think Friar Tuck would have excommunicated him.
This looks like the ideal place to link again to my own recent piece on Chalabi:
Chalabi, Iraqi oil and US policies, inspired by an earlier comment by Nugget.
Posted by: Jérôme | May 1 2005 11:47 utc | 1
The whole missing point on SS privatization is now the money comes back and circulates through communities from retirees spending that money. This creates commerce and a big shoot in the arm to local business. The district I live in has the 8th largest amount of SS recipients in the US.
If money is diverted to private accounts, and the benefits are cut, thats less money that comes back to localities. Also, Wall Street through mutual funds and companies through stock purchases will continue to demand higher return and leverage our 401k monies to divert jobs overseas, thus further de-industrializing the US and exporting knowledge base jobs.
This is the giant sucking sound of money coming out of the heartland and into the wallets of fat cats.
Posted by: jdp | May 1 2005 13:48 utc | 2
Being from the colonies, I haven’t been following this issue as closely as those directly affected by it.
I have a question: If social security is privatised, does that mean if you declare bankruptcy, your social security could be at risk?
Posted by: edwin | May 1 2005 13:58 utc | 3
Does Bush have any ideas at all, Barkeep? About anything? Any real ideas about Social Security? Ideas, not convictions, that is. We know that he likes to behave like a President, flying hither and yon selling things, the way Clinton did and does. We also know that he takes pleasure in hurting people who can’t fight back, or look like they can’t fight back, and, if ever given the chance, that he’d probably turn the whole wide world into his personal Death Row. And we know he was raised in a family that kissed the feet of bankers and oilmen. Such preferences make for agendas, but do they rise to the level of thoughts? More than anything, Bush wants to be loved–loved by people who trash the poor and enrich the rich. Above all, he wants the truly rich to treat him as if he were one of their own, but of course he lacks the money, brains or maturity to be treated as anything more than an ingratiating, if somewhat goofy, convenience. If he ever became inconvenient, they’d slam the door in his face. And Bush is afraid of this. He’s utterly driven by fear.
Posted by: alabama | May 1 2005 14:54 utc | 4
Now when Billmon mentioned Robin Hood (and always when someone mentions Bush) I can’t help but remember a comic of my youth “Alan Ford” and its character “Superciuk”. All tho story is located in New York I don’t think many Americans actually are aware of this great comic cause it’s made in Italy.
As I said there was a character in this comic (quote): Superciuk, the bandit alcoholic that he steals to the poor ones for giving the rich ones…
Superciuk
Posted by: vbo | May 1 2005 15:15 utc | 5
He may only be interim chief of the Oil Ministry, but in our hearts, Mr Chalabi will always be Iraq’s Minister of Slippery.
Posted by: notyou | May 1 2005 16:22 utc | 6
SocSec – cotton-picking minds: Berkshire’s Buffett, Munger Oppose Privatizing Social Security
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chairman Warren Buffett and Vice Chairman Charles Munger said they oppose U.S. President George W. Bush’s plan to allow privatization of Social Security because the government has a duty to take care of the country’s elderly.
“The Republicans are out of their cotton-picking minds on this issue,” Munger, a self-described right-wing Republican, told shareholders at Berkshire’s annual meeting today in Omaha, Nebraska. Social Security is “one of the most successful things that the government has ever done.”
Buffett, a Democrat, and Munger said the current system basically works well. Buffett suggested raising the retirement age and said benefits should pay more to retirees with the lowest income and personal wealth. The government should also levy more Social Security taxes by lifting a cap that stops taxing annual income above $90,000, Buffett said.
“I have great trouble with people who say this system can’t be sustained,” Buffett said. “A rich country takes care of its young and it takes care of its old.”
Last night, President Bush talked about cutting Social Security benefits for “people who are better off.” Who are these people? Bush adopted a proposal created by a guy named Richard Posen called “progressive price indexing.” That proposal would cut benefits for everyone except “the bottom 30 percent of earners, or those who make less than about $20,000 currently.”
So now people who “are better off” are defined as anyone earning over $20,000 a year. This is a dramatic change from the rhetoric Bush used to promote his tax cuts. A 3/8/01 White House fact sheet entitled “President’s Tax Relief Plan Gives Greatest Relief to Lowest Income Taxpayers,” touts that the “share of income taxes paid is reduced for all income groups below $100,000 in income.”
So to sell his tax cuts, Bush implied that anything under $100,000 was “low income.” Now, to sell his Social Security package, anything over $20,000 is “better off.”
Posted by: lonesomeG | May 2 2005 19:19 utc | 10
Until they kick them straight into the ass people will not realize what’s happening…it’s going to be too late then unfortunately. Similar thing is going on here but on a lower scale…Going too much right will affect eventually most of the (stupid) mass.
Posted by: vbo | May 3 2005 3:19 utc | 11