Peter Orszag, who was President Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget for about a year and a half, thinks this is a wonderful time to take on Social Security "reform." He notes that private accounts are off the table "for now" and so are tax increases so why would Democrats have a problem tackling Social Security "reform"? All they would have to do is cut benefits. Who could be against that?
The oddest thing about this is that Orszag acknowledges that compared to Medicare the long term funding problems at Social Security are minor. Why is it that Orszag and many others are obsessed with Social Security "reform" when they should be obsessed with health care reform?
Update: Orszag's piece gets a bad review from Nancy Altman. Writing on the Huffington Post, she calls it "fear-mongering" and "tin-eared."
A further update: Richard Eskow also has a bone to pick with Orszag but respectfully.
The oddest thing about this is that Orszag acknowledges that compared to Medicare the long term funding problems at Social Security are minor. Why is it that Orszag and many others are obsessed with Social Security "reform" when they should be obsessed with health care reform?
Update: Orszag's piece gets a bad review from Nancy Altman. Writing on the Huffington Post, she calls it "fear-mongering" and "tin-eared."
A further update: Richard Eskow also has a bone to pick with Orszag but respectfully.
I know your question is rhetorical but I will answer it anyway. The only kind of Social Security reform that "they" are interested in is elimination of the program entirely. That is their goal and they will never let it go--apparently. They are against any kind of assistance or welfare. Unless, of course, it is corporate welfare and somehow, that is ok. In terms of health care reform, "they" are perfectly happy with there being have and have-nots--as long as they are the haves. Health care reform is their worst nightmare. Furthermore, they need all of this money so that they can plan their next war--war is such a good profitable business--ask all of the large companies that thrive on it.
ReplyDeleteOh please.. give me a break here. This is old propaganda that Repubs are going to take away Social Security is tired and worn out. Congress, who stole Billions from the Social Security "Trust Fund" over the years are to blame, not the just "evil Republicans". Put the rhetoric in the trash where it belongs.
ReplyDeleteWell, A#2, some songs never lose their charm. The austerians want to dismantle every government program involved in any way with "transfer programs." The R's, being austerians, see reducing future SS benefits as a way to abolish the current concept of a secure retirement planning mechanism. Which, being translated, is Social Security.
ReplyDeleteIn a Malthusian society, if you starve to death, you deserve it. No tears shed. Couldn't be any plainer. If you have any doubts about it, just spend a few hours reviewing the Cato, AEI, and Heritage websites. Of course, if people believe this Doomsday Deficit propoganda, maybe there's something to the idea that they are the suckers who should never be given an even break.
The problem with Social Security is that it is supposed to be a retiremenyt/insurance porogram, but is not run like one.
ReplyDeleteWould an insurance company make loans on its reserves to worthy qualified buyers, or would it loan money to itself?
Social Security has loaned money to the Treasury, which is an internal transaction betweeen 2 governmental agencies.
The Congress had no say in these transactions, neither did the taxpayers, who funded Social Security.
These internal loans between 2 agencies of the Federal government would be like the insurance company loaning money to itself.
Now, instead if the Treasury securities were bought by individuals, thus increasing the public debt, we would have a loan between 2 distinct parties, the government and an external party.
You must have a separate creditor and debtor for a loan to be legitimate. The 2 subsets of Treasury and Social Security are part of the big set, the federal government.
Because in accounting terms, this is a wash, neither an asset nor a liability, it is plain there are not 2 distinct entities, a debtor and a creditor.
The government either owes something or owns something. It can't be both.
Is this a way to run an insutance/retirement system?
You bet it isn't.
At least the federal government is consistent.
The same can be said for the federal employees' retirement program. The government even admits that it is a pension plan that is not run like a pension plan. I can provide reputable third party governmental links for all my assertions.
Don Levit