![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Time for another letter to the editor
Not that they printed the my last one, but. I'm going to make one to reply to this, a happy fun piece of spin. Also, it's inconsistent, and wrong.
For example... "If it only takes rescinding President George Bush's tax cuts to solve the problem, as Selbo states in his letter, then former President Bill Clinton was lying when he said there was a Social Security problem. Even after Clinton raised taxes, he said there was a looming Social Security shortfall."
When Bill Clinton was in office, the situation was completely different. For one, the expected date of when Social Security would run out of Trust Fund buffer was a lot sooner, like 2010, rather than 2040something like it is now. Also, we had a surplus, which was how Clinton was preparing for Social Security, by paying down the debt and ensuring the money would be available to pay back the Trust Fund bonds. The surplus is long since gone, thanks to George W. Bush's tax giveaway to the rich. Now, between continued irresponsible tax giveaways and two wars, the deficit is bigger than ever. Nothing in Bush's privatization scheme would do anything to fix this, either. The President wants to borrow TRILLIONS more to create "private accounts". Trillions that will have to be paid back by our kids and grandkids, with much higher taxes.
"Yes, there are some government bonds in the Social Security coffers,..." Some. 1.6 Trillion dollars is a pretty big "some".
"Do you think the U. S. Government will just print the money to redeem the bonds? It doesn't work that way. " Well, yes, it does, really. But leaving that aside... "No, future taxpayers will have to cough up the money to redeem those bonds. And any increase in taxes at this time for Social Security will end up the same way. Congress will spend it and give the taxpayers a bond that our grandchildren will have to make good."
President Bush's "plan", what little of it we've actually been told (which amounts to... uh... "private accounts! Private accounts!" with no details or information) would require borrowing TRILLIONS of dollars more, which would be added to the government's debt that, yes, you guessed it, our kids and grandkids would have to pay back, far more than the bonds that would come from a tax increase to buffer the Trust Fund.
"What President Bush is dealing with is the retirement promise of Social Security. Allowing a portion of this to go into a personal account would benefit the poorest among us who cannot save for retirement." Not really, no, it wouldn't. From the numbers on the Cato Institute's online calculator, actually, the poorest among us would make less from private accounts than from Social Security. Yes, really.
And Social Security, despite his claim otherwise, IS an insurance program. It insures people against going broke when they retire. Even if we created President Bush's miraculous private accounts, there would be people whose accounts would fail, or the stock would drop, or they'd outlive the money in their accounts. Does this guy really think that the American public would sit around and let old people starve to death? Maybe, but I doubt the politicians would, thanks to the AARP if nothing else. And then we'd have to re-create essentially the same setup as we have now, with the government ensuring that people wouldn't drop below a certain income once they retire.
"Now Selbo feels that investing is risky. For some people it is, for others it isn't." That sentence is total... well, total nothing, really. Investing is only not risky if you can afford to lose the money. And if you can afford to lose the money, you probably have other things to supplement Social Security ANYWAY, this goes completely against his line above about private accounts "helping the poorest among us".
"People would have choices for investing, but not risky choices. Selbo indicates that he trusts the government. Well, it will be the government telling people what their investment choices are, the same as a government employee's own retirement plan. And these personal accounts would be voluntary!"
No, they wouldn't be. I mean... his whole sentence contradicts itself. It's "voluntary" but the government takes the money out automatically, forces you to invest it, and tells you what you can invest it in. That's not "voluntary". It's not necesarilly bad, but it's what he's claiming.
"The responsibility that current workers have to support current retirees will become too burdensome in the future because the ratio of worker to retiree will drop to two workers for every retiree. " False, actually, it depends on many factors.
"Personal accounts will not solve the problem, but they may help ease the pain when benefits are cut. The present benefit program is not sustainable."
Okay, seriously, WTF? He just admitted that the President's "private accounts" won't help solve the "crisis" in Social Security at all. Which is true. Which President Bush has even admitted. So... they won't solve the problem, they won't stop benefit cuts, and they're going to cost trillions of dollars more in debt... Where's the good side to these "private accounts"? Because I'm not seeing it, at all.
"All solutions should be on the table, but to just say rescind the Bush tax cuts and the problem will be solved smacks of partisanship at its lowest level." LOL.
What a horrid, hack job of an opinion. Which is only to be expected, when trying to defend something that he ADMITS won't help the alleged "crisis" at all. Wow. Just wow.
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles
For example... "If it only takes rescinding President George Bush's tax cuts to solve the problem, as Selbo states in his letter, then former President Bill Clinton was lying when he said there was a Social Security problem. Even after Clinton raised taxes, he said there was a looming Social Security shortfall."
When Bill Clinton was in office, the situation was completely different. For one, the expected date of when Social Security would run out of Trust Fund buffer was a lot sooner, like 2010, rather than 2040something like it is now. Also, we had a surplus, which was how Clinton was preparing for Social Security, by paying down the debt and ensuring the money would be available to pay back the Trust Fund bonds. The surplus is long since gone, thanks to George W. Bush's tax giveaway to the rich. Now, between continued irresponsible tax giveaways and two wars, the deficit is bigger than ever. Nothing in Bush's privatization scheme would do anything to fix this, either. The President wants to borrow TRILLIONS more to create "private accounts". Trillions that will have to be paid back by our kids and grandkids, with much higher taxes.
"Yes, there are some government bonds in the Social Security coffers,..." Some. 1.6 Trillion dollars is a pretty big "some".
"Do you think the U. S. Government will just print the money to redeem the bonds? It doesn't work that way. " Well, yes, it does, really. But leaving that aside... "No, future taxpayers will have to cough up the money to redeem those bonds. And any increase in taxes at this time for Social Security will end up the same way. Congress will spend it and give the taxpayers a bond that our grandchildren will have to make good."
President Bush's "plan", what little of it we've actually been told (which amounts to... uh... "private accounts! Private accounts!" with no details or information) would require borrowing TRILLIONS of dollars more, which would be added to the government's debt that, yes, you guessed it, our kids and grandkids would have to pay back, far more than the bonds that would come from a tax increase to buffer the Trust Fund.
"What President Bush is dealing with is the retirement promise of Social Security. Allowing a portion of this to go into a personal account would benefit the poorest among us who cannot save for retirement." Not really, no, it wouldn't. From the numbers on the Cato Institute's online calculator, actually, the poorest among us would make less from private accounts than from Social Security. Yes, really.
And Social Security, despite his claim otherwise, IS an insurance program. It insures people against going broke when they retire. Even if we created President Bush's miraculous private accounts, there would be people whose accounts would fail, or the stock would drop, or they'd outlive the money in their accounts. Does this guy really think that the American public would sit around and let old people starve to death? Maybe, but I doubt the politicians would, thanks to the AARP if nothing else. And then we'd have to re-create essentially the same setup as we have now, with the government ensuring that people wouldn't drop below a certain income once they retire.
"Now Selbo feels that investing is risky. For some people it is, for others it isn't." That sentence is total... well, total nothing, really. Investing is only not risky if you can afford to lose the money. And if you can afford to lose the money, you probably have other things to supplement Social Security ANYWAY, this goes completely against his line above about private accounts "helping the poorest among us".
"People would have choices for investing, but not risky choices. Selbo indicates that he trusts the government. Well, it will be the government telling people what their investment choices are, the same as a government employee's own retirement plan. And these personal accounts would be voluntary!"
No, they wouldn't be. I mean... his whole sentence contradicts itself. It's "voluntary" but the government takes the money out automatically, forces you to invest it, and tells you what you can invest it in. That's not "voluntary". It's not necesarilly bad, but it's what he's claiming.
"The responsibility that current workers have to support current retirees will become too burdensome in the future because the ratio of worker to retiree will drop to two workers for every retiree. " False, actually, it depends on many factors.
"Personal accounts will not solve the problem, but they may help ease the pain when benefits are cut. The present benefit program is not sustainable."
Okay, seriously, WTF? He just admitted that the President's "private accounts" won't help solve the "crisis" in Social Security at all. Which is true. Which President Bush has even admitted. So... they won't solve the problem, they won't stop benefit cuts, and they're going to cost trillions of dollars more in debt... Where's the good side to these "private accounts"? Because I'm not seeing it, at all.
"All solutions should be on the table, but to just say rescind the Bush tax cuts and the problem will be solved smacks of partisanship at its lowest level." LOL.
What a horrid, hack job of an opinion. Which is only to be expected, when trying to defend something that he ADMITS won't help the alleged "crisis" at all. Wow. Just wow.
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles