I never thought I'd miss William Safire
After writing a few non-political pieces, new NYT columnist John Tierney has finally decided to end his honeymoon and weigh in with a pair of lousy pieces on social security privatization.
The first one was bad enough, reducing the complexities of the social security debate to an anecdote, and a foreign one at that. Tierney chose to disregard all of the political, ideological, and fiscal hurdles to privatization in favor of drooling over the pension of a Chilean economist. At least David Brooks will look at an entire survey before he makes his sweeping generalizations.
Today's piece unblushingly repeats just about every discredited assumption made in the pro-privatization camp. First, he takes it for granted that it will "shore up the system," though the riddle of how taking money out of the system improves its finances is yet to be solved. Even President Bush speaks of private accounts and solvency as separate issues.
Next he makes the statement that "most workers now pay more to Social Security than to the I.R.S." Discerning the economic truth of this I will leave to Neil, but I'd like to point out the political fallacy here. Pro-privatizers like to make statements about what workers "pay" to Social Security as if it is like the money you pay for your rent or a ham sandwich, as if it is money you are not getting back in some way. It fits with the characterization of tax cuts as "giving back your money" or as President Bush has said with trademark pithy: "It's your money. You paid for it." Payroll tax, like any other tax, is payment for a service. The government isn't taking your money and hopping the bus to Atlantic City.
Next, Tierney acknowledges Social Security's tremendous anti-poverty effects, but qualifies: "As a poverty-fighting program, Social Security is woefully inefficient because most of the money goes to people who aren't poor." He's right, but this "inefficiency" is what makes Social Security an effective anti-poverty program, because if it wasn't so inefficient, it would have been abolished by now. Anti-poverty programs, i.e. welfare in the form of AFDC, that target the poor raise issues of deservingness that make them tremendously unpopular and lead to their demise.
Finally, Tierney tries to assuage critics' fears that without the safety net of Social Security, many individuals could be left with an unsatisfactory pension. He says that the Cato Institute and Congressional Republicans have been talking about a measure to subsidize elderly up to the poverty line if their pension does not meet it.
I have not seen any numbers on such a proposal, but I would say that whether it is a good idea depends on the cause of these pensions running low. At a time when markets are generally kind and the only cause of lackluster pensions is bad market choices or personal injury, the financial obligation to such a safety net would be low. However, in times of market downturn, there may be more retirees with paltry pensions than there is government ability to pay for them. Therefore, this could be increasing Social Security's financial burden, not to mention such direct payments, specifically to the poorest, again raise the issues of deservingness that would put Social Security's very existence in peril. Hmm, why would the Cato Institute and Congressional Republicans be insensitive to such a concern?
I'm glad we're having this Social Security debate in this country. It is a vital program, and any ideas to improve it should be on the table, and though privatization is a bad idea, most of those promoting it mean well. Also, the debate raises issues concerning the balance of personal, community, and government responsibility that need to be discussed as we move from the industrial to the information age. Such a great discussion should not be about winning and losing, so when pro-privatization advocates reiterate their claims in the face of facts to the contrary, it feels more like combat than conversation, and Tierney, in a new place of influence as a NYT columnist, is doing a disservice.
posted by Shaun at 12:35:00 PM
9 Comments:
this shit is why i stick with commenting politics lite and tech
it hurts my brain far less
oh that and i actually care about video games
"Payroll tax, like any other tax, is payment for a service. The government isn't taking your money and hopping the bus to Atlantic City."
No, it's not, but the government is pouring your SS money into ineffective social programs, pork projects, and just about anything else you can imagine. Calling SS "payment for a service" implies that you get something in return. In fact, if you die before you're old enough to collect, you get nothing. And as a fellow (possible) Fordham law student, you know full well, Shaun, that the Supreme Court has ruled SS benefits are not guaranteed, i.e. Americans have no right to expect anything from the government in return for their payments.
If SS as currently constituted truly is a service, then it is a service that I am happy to forsake in exchange for the funds that I have paid into it.
Well if you die you won't be getting money from anywhere. Because, you know, you'll be dead.
Seriously, though, I see your point but I believe our divergence here is created by differing ideological underpinnings that will not be resolved.
I call my payroll tax payment for a service because I see Social Security as a vital social obligation. Even if I don't receive the service myself, I reap dividends in knowing I've helped to provide for those most vulnerable in the community, just as they would be providing for me should I find disfortune.
You, however, would prefer to reshape Social Security as a pension program, which is a notion entirely separate from the program's purpose. But in your opinion, it's a better deal and that's that.
I call our differences irresolvable in intellectual terms because they are coming from different value systems. However, the direction in which the conflict will be resolved in the political arena is pretty well indicated by the polls.
"Well if you die you won't be getting money from anywhere. Because, you know, you'll be dead."
Correct, but with PSA's, you would be collecting your returns throughout your lifetime (and could bequeath them to your descendants upon your death, which you can't do now), instead of kissing them goodbye for 40 years with a hope and a prayer that the government doesn't mismanage them into non-existence.
Even with our differences of ideology, which I do agree shape our approaches to the issue, I still think that you should be willing to consider PSA's. The SS program as it exists now will eventually collapse, and then it won't be fulfilling anyone's "social obligation".
"However, the direction in which the conflict will be resolved in the political arena is pretty well indicated by the polls."
I think you're right; polls increasingly show that the public believes there is a problem with SS that should be fixed sooner rather than later, and that Bush and not the Democrats is trying to fix that problem.
Merits or lack thereof of PSA's aside, I think it's a mistake to characterize them a means of "fixing" Social Security, because in both intent, form, and function they are entirely different from Social Security. If you want to knock down our social insurance system and replace it with a pension system, we can have that discussion, but it is misleading to say PSA's correct or bolster Social Security, because they actually replace it.
And while the public may think something needs to be done about Social Security, it's pretty clear PSA's aren't it. Also, they realize that Democrats, in the minority, have no ability to pass their own proposals, so they will face no reprisals for lack of a counter-plan. In fact, they are seen as doing what an opposition should do: blocking the worst of what the majority has to offer.
So now, all I'll have to do is die so that I can bequeath a piddly amount of money to my heirs. Of course, given that privatization requires $15 trillion before the year 2040, this isn't actual wealth creation. It's simply the government borrowing money and giving it to people to invest into the stock market.
Sounds like a margin scam, which is why I guess CATO & Co. are endorsing it.
Oh yes, I forgot to mention: those black folk that die earlier than everyone else will probably be the wealthiest people in America, you know, since private accounts will be all the rage. They'll be bequeathin' like it's 2042.
Glibness aside, no one's saying that anyone is going to get rich off of PSA's. It's just a better deal, is all.
And PSA's won't require $15 trillion of new spending. Picking outrageous-sounding figures out of the air is fun, but that number includes liabilities that the current system will have to pay anyway.
Outrageous.
How is receiving lower benefits, at a much greater cost to the federal government, a better deal? It's not even creating savings or wealth.
Post a Comment
<< Home