fake crisis
 

Actually, this tension will only increase as the Administration also pushes its (next) tax cut plan.

The breaking point will occur when Bush has to explain his rationale while employing (and pronouncing) the term "asymptote."

fake crisis
 

Not if he "refuses to negotiate with himself."

fake crisis
 

Fair point.

"John, I don't get to write the growth projections ...."

fake crisis
 

Help me.

SS will go broke in about 2050 unless fixed soon. Bush has a proposal, you don't like it- okay- it seems like the sort of thing that really should be a joint Dem/Rep solution since it's long term, and will necessarially span several administrations. What is the Dem solution? Hillary was co-President for 8 years. Why didn't we hear about it then? What was his solution?

Let them eat cake?

I know I still need to get used to "We're in power-we'll always be in power- and the also-rans will bitch"- like on HS b-ball when Thurgreed was second string to me, and he kept saying I shoot too much when I came near during time outs. But really, like I finally told T. back then, you don't have a better shot, so shut up, please.

Too much choice
 

I've seen a whole load of articles lately about the horrors of having too many options/risky decisions to make. This is part and parcel of a greater fearful reaction to the flood of information we get regularly as a result of technology. Some Americans have this fucked up reaction to knowledge - they actually seem to believe you can know too much, or have TMI about a given topic. I hear this shit from old people all the time - "We were better off when things were simpler." Ignorance is bliss. One idiot in one of last month's NRs actually hinted that we should re-embrace religion and stop researching genetics because we're better off "believing" in an absolute than learning the scientific bases for everything. That writer's prime concern was the fact that scientists are beginning to unravel the synaptic and chemical components of what we've called our "souls" or "inner selves" for centuries. Having choice is the worst of all worlds for the "ignorance is bliss" crowd. Now, not only are they forced to think, they're forced to make decisions based on processing varying data. This is the point where the radical left and right are in agreement. They both want a larger group to make all their decisions for them. Jesus or Uncle Sam? Which will it be? Just. Don't. Make. Me. Responsible.

There are far too many rubes and imbeciles in this nation to privatize SS, but in theory, I love Bush's idea.

The simple solution to the problem of too much choice for the unskilled or scared SS investor is to offer them an opt out. They should be allowed to opt out of choosing their own investments and allow theit account to be managed by the govt. If they want to change that later - as they will when the next tech boom erupts - they should have to go through a rollover period sort of like when you roll your pension into an IRA.

fake crisis
 

Hank,

I appreciate the humor that scatology brings, but the holiday season seems to induce really weak shit from you. Must be the egg nog.

The problem is that Bush's proposal, such as it is, doesn't really solve anything. It's a massive change that converts a welfare program into government controlled 401(k)s, but does little to fix the problem that you're so concerned about.

Bush is proposing a solution that, far as I can tell, even its advocates concede won't solve the problem by itself*. Like I asked earlier, if you can point me in the direction of something that actually refutes the proposition that privitization *can't* create the boost necessary to make SocSec solvent by 2050 (or whenever), I'd like to hear it.

It's also a problem which, btw, can be addressed easily over the next 50 years by tinkering with the tax rate or with the level of benefits. That's a touchy problem, though, so I can understand at some level Bush's inclination to THINK BIG, and in a way that distracts us from actually addressing the problem.

While we're at it, we can also talk about the ONE TO TWO TRILLION DOLLARS required to make this adjustment to accommodate the ideological fantasies of conservatives if you'd like to, but since Bush has declared that we'll borrow every single dime of that amount, we'd better have that discussion quickly before the Administration takes the borrowing off-budget, and we never hear about it again but start wondering why the dollar's valuation has fallen off the edge of a fucking cliff.

The problem with your "Oh, yeah? Where's YOUR proposal" argument is that

(1) Bush hasn't actually proposed anything of substance yet, other than the orgasmic word "privitization." The pity is that, according to the man's press conference yesterday, Bush's White House actually doesn't make legislative proposals -- instead, they come up with the Big Idea, and waits for someone in Congress to find a way to make it work in the Reality Based Community.

When he's able to find someone Republican in the hallways of Congress who can grab a #2 pencil and write down exactly how this is going to work, and how he intends to pay for it, then let's talk.

(2) There's not universal agreement that we've got a crisis today. Arguing that we do is part of the reason that we've got an administration churning out sunny-day estimates for tax cut purposes, but an SSA predicting an oncoming typhoon. If Bush really wants to tackle a crisis, we can talk about Medicare, which will dwarf any problems SocSec might pose. The challenge there, I suppose, is that it's harder to refashion Medicare benefits into a private account that can be played in the markets.

(3) When the GOP solution is one that ignores any financial pain whatsoever, relying on the opposition to provide one that is tethered to the constraints of reality is a bit disengenuous, don't you think?

Gattigap




* See, for example, the GAO's own statement that "The creation of private accounts for Social Security will not deal with the solvency and sustainability of the Social Security fund." Once the Ownership Society's orgasm from Bush's proposal has receded, and we're into its multi-month refractory period, we'll have to face up to this unpleasant fact.

Too much choice
 

I was with you until the end. The government should not be in the investment business.

I too can't understand the objections to doing something about SS. You (not you Sebby, the universal you) may not agree with the proposals (which is difficult, because they have not really been presented yet), or you may not think the Bush team knows what they are doing, but I'm not sure how anyone can take the position that the status quo is OK.

Too much choice
 

Agreed, an opt-out would resolve the problem of too many choices. I suppose you could tie those people to an overall stock index fund, and they'd be fucked only in the event of an overall market decline. But the question is really if we want the government to play the markets for us. I don't really have the requisite degree of confidence in it.

As an aside, I recently heard one opponent of privitization frame the issue this way, which I thought was interesting: Most people have three legs to the "stool" of retirement. One being a pension or 401(k) or something similar (if they have that), which is dependent on stock market risk; one being their equity holding (usually their house) which is dependent to some degree on housing market risk, and then government assistance through SocSec. Among the discussion about SocSec reform is whether Americans, as much as we like free markets, really want ALL of our retirement resources dependent upon the vagaries of those markets.

Too much choice
 

I'm not sure that many people really take that position.

People generally agree that the problem is a big one, albeit one that is generational in duration, and where the big hit occurs decades hence. It's a good idea to fix it sooner, rather than later, and preferably now.

Think of it as a half-completed train trestle across a river. The train is approaching, and people have dithered for years over whether to increase taxes to finish the trestle, or keep funds as they are and use cheaper materials. The Bush Administration's Big Idea is akin to eschewing both of those solutions for getting the train across the river but instead building a gigantic fucking catapult.

This idea, of course, is good news of messianic proportions to the local catapult industry, but those who object this "plan" shouldn't necessarily be described as wanting only the status quo.

Too much choice
 

If the GOP really thinks that the prospect of a Social Security that (like, e.g., the military) will start drawing on general revenues in 2050 is so bad, why isn't it doing something about the massive structural deficits we have now, or the problems with the Medicare system that we'll be confronting much sooner? Social Security is hardly the greatest of our problems now.

eta: And the idea of adding trillions to the deficit to "save" Social Security from running deficits decades in the future would be comical if not for the fact that so many conservatives seem to be suspending cognitive functioning to line up behind it.

Too much choice
 

I think the opposition is purely ideological - the DEMs don't want to see an undoing of one of the pillars of the New Deal.

It seems to me that there is a lot of room to strike a deal here. Would you object to some combination of raising the minimum age and allowing self directed investment accounts for a portion of an individual' SS account?

Too much choice
 

They should.

This is a now or later problem. It would cost between $1.5-2.0 trillion now, or up to $10 trillion later.

Too much choice
 

Oh, piff. Dems don't want to see SS undone because it has worked extraordinarily well. Identify a Republican program that has achieved its desired goal for 60 years and is projected to achieve it for another 30.... and achieve 75% of its goal thereafter. SDI?

When the undoing of the program will cost 4 trillion dollars (yes, I know -- Bush only wants to borrow 2 trillion or so, but what will the cost of that debt be?), and will not address the problems of the program, and may well give rise to new and worse problems.... well, I suppose that's merely an ideological response, right?





Why does the former require the latter? The minimum age should be raised to reflect reality -- the reality of longer lifespans, longer working lives, etc.

The gov't has already provided numerous options to allow for self directed, tax-advantaged retirement funds. 401(k)s, Keogh, SEP-IRA, IRA, Roth IRA, cash balance accounts, term life insurance, 529 plans (technically not retirement but covering an expense that itself interferes with retirement saving), etc. SS is supposed to be a safety net -- how does it function as one when exposed to the stock market?

Social Security Trust Fund Poll
 

Do people believe that the Fed will actually repay its debt to Social Security?

Or are Repubs finally ready to admit that Ronald Reagan is the biggest tax (the poor)-and-spend President of all time?

Too much choice
 

I think the opposition is ideological, and not based merely on nostalgia.

Raising the minimum age? Fine by me, but what are you going to give us for going along with that? I mean, what's the deal?

On the self-directed investment accounts, this is the rub. It's ending Social Security if you don't have a guarantee at the bottom. And how are you going to pay for it? It's making the problem you're pretending to solve worse.