Bush: "Social Security is in crisis." US: "Uh, sure, and Saddam had WMD's..."
I'll semi-quote Bush himself here: "Fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me." (I know he TRIED to ejaculate that old adage once, but something different came out)
Most projections estimate Social Security will not be able to keep paying full benefits after 2042, and SS itself thinks that 2052 is more likely. Problem? Well, I will be 77 in 2042, God willing, so it MIGHT be bad if I start to receive only 70% of my benefits...
BUT, the problem is so far down the line that the "fix" doesn't need to be an hit to the budget of 2 trillion dollars (over the course of 10 years). It requires either a 13% cut in benefits now, OR, a 2 - 3 % increase in the payroll tax! At least, based on the numbers I've seen. Even if my numbers are not exact, we have 37 years to manifest a solution. We need to get way more out of 2 trillion dollars than merely adding private accounts.
Bush wants private accounts. I am not necessarily against this idea, but every projection regarding the cost of what he wants I've seen is 2 trillion bucks over 10 years. Setting up private accounts does NOT have to be this expensive, and its just weird for someone who CALLS himself a conservative to champion such a budget-busting tactic.
By the way, John Kerry was right, that private accounts could have a catastrophic effect, if this is done incorrectly.
I've heard a conspiracy theory that Bush's ACTUAL political goal is the bankruptcy of the US treasury. It seems wild, until you evaluate how fiscally irresponsible the Bush administration has been. Tax cuts in a time of war is an historic first.
Bush is calling it a "crisis" because it allows him to accomplish major Republican goals regarding the administration of Social Security (starting with the personal accounts), and it also helps him avoid dealing with the REAL crisis.
I bet we could all say this together. Our most pressing issue is health care. Duh. It was Clinton's first priority. At least Kerry talked about trying to fix it.
Most projections estimate Social Security will not be able to keep paying full benefits after 2042, and SS itself thinks that 2052 is more likely. Problem? Well, I will be 77 in 2042, God willing, so it MIGHT be bad if I start to receive only 70% of my benefits...
BUT, the problem is so far down the line that the "fix" doesn't need to be an hit to the budget of 2 trillion dollars (over the course of 10 years). It requires either a 13% cut in benefits now, OR, a 2 - 3 % increase in the payroll tax! At least, based on the numbers I've seen. Even if my numbers are not exact, we have 37 years to manifest a solution. We need to get way more out of 2 trillion dollars than merely adding private accounts.
Bush wants private accounts. I am not necessarily against this idea, but every projection regarding the cost of what he wants I've seen is 2 trillion bucks over 10 years. Setting up private accounts does NOT have to be this expensive, and its just weird for someone who CALLS himself a conservative to champion such a budget-busting tactic.
By the way, John Kerry was right, that private accounts could have a catastrophic effect, if this is done incorrectly.
I've heard a conspiracy theory that Bush's ACTUAL political goal is the bankruptcy of the US treasury. It seems wild, until you evaluate how fiscally irresponsible the Bush administration has been. Tax cuts in a time of war is an historic first.
Bush is calling it a "crisis" because it allows him to accomplish major Republican goals regarding the administration of Social Security (starting with the personal accounts), and it also helps him avoid dealing with the REAL crisis.
I bet we could all say this together. Our most pressing issue is health care. Duh. It was Clinton's first priority. At least Kerry talked about trying to fix it.
posted by TRS at 1/15/2005 08:32:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home