Opinion > For the Record on Social Security” href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1263099600&en=24a380642da9ba1b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland”>The New York Times > Opinion > 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?
Why is Bush pulling an ‘Iraq’ on us and overstating/lying about the ‘crisis’? I thought it might just be a generous gift to his supporters in the financial industry. That seems more practical that a desire to eradicate FDR’s legacy — which surely motivates some of the deeper thinkers on the Right.
Now I realize it is an essential step in ‘starving the beast’ (destroying the Federal Government economically). Because the opposite of what Bush claims is true: there’s too much money in Social Security and that enables lots of legislation. So, cut the inflows by 66% and create the crises you claim is already coming. Now Congress doesn’t have so much extra money to play with and the Federal Government is stifled. Or, Democrats elected in response to the all the things Bush is doing wrong are forced to raise taxes and the Republican can spew the same old lines that have served them so well for so long. mjh
Read the rest of the Times editorial.
Continue reading Right on Iraq, Right on SS? →