Sylvester Schieber, who was George W. Bush's appointee as Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board, has a new book out, The Predictable Surprise: The Unraveling of the U.S. Retirement System. Predictably, the book is hostile to Social Security. Here are some excerpts from Robert J. Samuelson's review in the Washington Post:
[Social Security] has become what was then [the 1930s] called “the dole” and is now known as “welfare.” This forgotten history clarifies why America’s budget problems are so intractable. ...
What we have is a vast welfare program grafted onto the rhetoric and psychology of a contributory pension. The result is entitlement. ...
By all rights, we should ask: Who among the elderly need benefits? How much? At what age? If Social Security and Medicare were considered “welfare” — something the nation does for its collective good — these questions would be easier. We would tailor programs to meet national needs. But entitlements are viewed as a higher-order moral claim, owed individuals based on past performance. So a huge part of government spending moves off-limits to intelligent discussion.
We once had a broad consensus on Social Security. People like Schieber have been paid to disrupt that consensus. Those who support the continued existence of Social Security need to understand that there is a group of well-paid "experts" based in Washington whose job is to undermine Social Security. They are funded by right-wing enemies of Social Security. Schieber is one of this group. They produce books, blog posts, op ed pieces and studies. They are always available to speak on television and at conferences. They get appointed by Republicans to be on prestigious commissions and boards. They pose as scholars but they are just polemicists.
Samuelson's fawning review has already drawn a response from Jared Bernstein.
Samuelson's fawning review has already drawn a response from Jared Bernstein.
8 comments:
He's just another Braggart and Blingtard. Pay him no mind...
By all rights, we should ask: Who among the elderly need benefits? How much? At what age? If Social Security and Medicare were considered “welfare” — something the nation does for its collective good — these questions would be easier. We would tailor programs to meet national needs. But entitlements are viewed as a higher-order moral claim, owed individuals based on past performance. So a huge part of government spending moves off-limits to intelligent discussion.
What part of this statement do you disagree with?
The FASAB is the accounting advisor for the federal government.
From a paper entitled "Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources and Concepts for Reconciling Budgetary and Financial Information, SFFAS 7:"
Page 109 Taxes are levied through the exercise of the power of the Government to compel payment. In broad terms taxes are 'the price we pay for civilization.' More specifically, they finance spending of many types to promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense, and ensure domestic tranquility. The relationship between the tax paid and the value received is too indirect and disproportionate to relate the revenue that is received from any identifiable taxpayer to the cost that is incurred for providing the identifiable taxpayer with benefits. This is especially the case when the benefits are of a collective or public in nature where the benefits are designed to redistribute income from one group of people to another. Therefore, tax revenue is nonexchange revenue.
http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles /sffas-7.pdf.
Don Levit
A1:32 The whole statement is bogus. What part of "insurance" do you not understand? People pay social security taxes and, in return, are covered by the insurance of social security in the event of loss of income due to death, retirement, or disability. The contractual terms are spelled out by statute.
If someone proposed interfering with other insurance contracts, even the Republicans would be up in arms.
Social security provides huge benefits to our society and our economy, including to those not receiving social security. The stability of having income and not worrying about the next month's rent is of great psychological benefit. Much/most of social security is spent in the local economy --boosting profits of local businesspeople. The children of senior citizens don't have to fund their parents' retirement -- thereby freeing money for their own toys, their own kids' college, their own retirement. The program works well.
Ronald Reagan recognized the value of social security and was involved in the 1983 legislation which made social security solvent for the next 75 years. That legislation tweaked taxes here and there, and achieved its goal. Similarly, relatively minor tweaks can extend solvency for another 75 years. If immigration ever stopped being used as a bad word, that would help too, with additional workers paying more taxes.
When did the right in our country become so mean-spirited? Government is not business, and cannot be run as a business. Government has certain functions which are of vital importance to us all -- and require us all to contribute. That's exactly why FDR designed social security as a contributory insurance -- he was quoted as saying that was so, so that no future politician could get his hands on the program.
anon at 2:18...aside from stating that the statement was "bogus" you didn't actually adress what he said.
Yes, I agree that SS is important to our society. But it's not "bogus" to ask these questions:
By all rights, we should ask: Who among the elderly need benefits? How much? At what age?
In fact, not asking those questions shows ignorance.
If the media was better informed and those with stakes in the system more honest about the system, the media and the public would be focused on the disability aspect of Social Security, which is ripe with fraud, waste, and idiotic regulations.
Social Security provides a necessary and important safety net for the elderly who lack sufficient retirement income (for whatever reason -- low paying jobs, stay at home parent whose spouse died before retirement age or early in retirement, lack of good financial planning, unexpected illness wiping out savings, etc). However, the pool of funds for Social Security is limited and every dollar that goes to someone who is labeled "disabled" and should not be so labeled is one less dollar that is available to pay benefits to retirees.
i concur with the statement above
Baloney. Of course there are cheaters on DI. But they are the very rare exception, far from the norm. Clean every single one out and you've made nary a dent in the financing of SSA issue.
Post a Comment