Now You Tell Us

From Andrew Biggs, writing in the National Review, a conservative magazine:

Personal accounts [to add onto or substitute for Social Security] are a valid choice, and one I’ve supported in the past and continue to support. But accounts aren’t exclusive to tax increases or benefit cuts; they don’t, as I’ll explain, reduce the need for these other choices. One problem for the Bush administration’s reform drive in 2005 was that many congressional Republicans had bought into the idea that accounts reduce or eliminate the need for tax increases or benefit cuts. Finding out they don’t may have taken some wind out of their sails. ...

[O]nce transition costs are accounted for, the total rate of return on a personal-accounts-based program would be about the same as the current system. ...

Also unchanged would be the program’s financing shortfall, even assuming that account holders gave up a share of their traditional benefits. A pay-as-you-go program like Social Security is always in the hole, such that each generation honors the benefits of the preceding one while hoping their own claims will be honored by the following generation. No generation can break away from this cycle without either ponying up extra cash (tax increases) or defaulting on its promises (benefit cuts). Neither solution is costless. ...

The only way personal accounts could fix Social Security on their own is if accountholders gave up traditional benefits far in excess of the taxes they put into accounts. For instance, individuals might put half their taxes into an account but give up all their traditional benefits. This would fix Social Security, but it’s not clear that most (or even many) workers would take the deal. You might come out ahead if you got solid investment returns, but you could also fall far short. This is just asking accounts to do more than they reasonably can.

As you may recall, Biggs was sent by the Bush Administration to work at Social Security to promote privatization of Social Security. Unlike the Commissioner of Social Security at the time, and all other Social Security employees, Biggs actively campaigned with President Bush for partial privatization of Social Security. He now works at the Cato Institute, a right wing "think tank." The Koch brothers were instrumental in creating Cato and still give it heavy support. With reasonable talk like this, you have to wonder how long Biggs will be able to stay at Cato.

Off Topic: Republicans Have Gone Mad

Click on the thumbnail once or twice to see it full size. It is a question from a Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

Most Republicans believe their President wants to impose Sharia law in the United States? Only 7% of Republicans know this is definitely not true? Where are the Republican grown-ups? How can a party which depends upon the votes of such woefully misinformed people govern?

Meet The President's Budget Commission Members

Read TPM Media's rundown on the members of the President's Budget Commission. Talk about a stacked deck!

Disabled Employees Sue Social Security

From the Baltimore Sun:

A group of disabled workers is moving forward with a class-action lawsuit against the Social Security Administration alleging the federal agency discriminates against employees with disabilities by denying or limiting promotions.

An office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Aug. 25 affirmed a 2008 decision by an EEOC administrative judge that certified the case as a class action, attorneys for the plaintiffs said Monday. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and other damages as well as changes in policies and procedures that will improve career opportunities for disabled employees, according attorneys for the plaintiffs.

The federal agency could not be reached late Monday for comment.

The Koch Brothers And Social Security

I have seen an explosion of anti-Social Security articles in newspapers, magazines and blogs in recent months. No doubt, much of this is a genuine reflection of the widespread and undying opposition to Social Security among the 20% or so of Americans who are on the extreme right. However, the unprecedented volume and ferocity of the articles I am seeing has made me wonder what is going on.

I encourage you to read Jane Mayer's article in the New Yorker on the Koch brothers.They are secretive oil multi-billionaires who have spent tens of millions of dollars, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their openly anarchist views -- and I do mean anarchist. They want government, apart from police, to disappear. The late William F. Buckley described their political philosophy as anarcho-totalitarianism. The Koch brothers founded and support most of the right wing think tanks. They have created many seemingly grassroot groups that are actually "astroturf."

There is no question that many of the virulent attacks on Social Security are coming from organizations founded, supported and largely controlled by the Koch brothers.

Government Shutdown Coming?

At least one observer believes that should Republicans retake control of the House of Representatives after the election they may force a government shutdown in order to defund health care reform. The right has become so frighteningly strident that this seems plausible to me. Of course, a lot of people remember this did not work so well the last time Republicans tried it so common sense may prevail.

Republican Senatorial Candidate Says Social Security Unconstitutional

Joe Miller, who is very likely, perhaps nearly certain, to be the Republican senatorial candidate in Alaska:

That Two Year Waiting Period

From Kaiser Health News:

After Russ Hillard developed Huntington's disease, a devastating neurological disorder, he lost his $35,000-a-year job as a welder and, with it, his health insurance.

His wife, who was working part time, had insurance, but it didn't come close to covering the medical bills for the incurable disease, which causes uncontrolled movements, emotional problems and the loss of cognitive abilities. Eventually, Hillard qualified for Medicare, which covers disabled people under 65 after a two-year waiting period. But the coverage didn't kick in until after the family went deeply into debt and had to take out a $20,000 loan on their home in Methuen, N.H. ...

Under federal rules, most people with disabilities who are younger than 65 aren't eligible for Medicare until more than two years after they qualify for Social Security disability income. A coalition of more than 65 organizations led by the Medicare Rights Center has been pushing Congress to do away with the waiting period. But the effort has stalled because of the high cost to the federal government – an estimated $113 billion over 10 years ...

Some groups, including the Huntington's Disease Society of America, are going their own way, asking Congress for specific waivers from the Medicare waiting period for their diseases.