To: "homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org" <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [Homestead] Social Security perspective as of 5/3/05
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 09:02:47 -0700
Time to Leave the Table
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, May 3, 2005; Page A21
There is a name for those who continue to sit at a gambling table even
after they learn that the game is fixed. They are called fools.
Now that President Bush has proposed Social Security benefit cuts through
"progressive indexing," his critics are said to have an obligation to
negotiate in good faith to achieve a solution. There are just two problems
with that sentence: The words "good faith" and "solution."
Bush's "plan" is still not a plan, just a few ideas. If the president is
serious, let him first persuade members of his own party to agree to a
detailed proposal so everyone knows what the trade-offs are. If what he has
in mind is a good idea, Republicans will be eager to sign on. And if Bush
can't get Republicans to go along, might that say something about the
merits of his suggestions?
Opponents of Bush's cut-and-privatize project -- they include not only
Democrats but also skeptical Republicans -- do have a responsibility. Their
task is to subject half-baked concepts to the criticism they deserve and
insist that they be fully baked before serious discussions can begin.
Social Security, the most successful government program in our history,
should not be overturned lightly.
That the president is fixing the Social Security reform game should be
obvious. The most basic corruption of the process is the way the Republican
congressional leadership has transformed the bargaining that once took
place between the House and the Senate.
In the old days, when each house produced different versions of the same
bill, a "conference" committee typically including members of both parties
from both houses would thrash out the details and reach a compromise. Now
the Republicans will concede whatever is necessary to get a bill out of the
Senate, even as the lockstep-Republican House produces a right-wing version
of the same proposal. In conferences, Republicans routinely freeze out all
but the most pliable Democrats. The supposed "compromise" that emerges is
not a compromise at all. Democrats who go along become enablers of a game
being played with a stacked deck.
The game is also fixed because the president has narrowed the range of
Social Security options to protect his most questionable policy choices.
Some press reports have suggested that Bush's willingness to cut Social
Security benefits for the wealthy turned him into some latter-day Karl
Marx, or at least Ted Kennedy.
This is nonsense.
Bush has refused to put his own tax cuts on the table as part of a Social
Security fix. Repealing Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than
$350,000 a year could cover all or most of the 75-year Social Security
shortfall. Keeping part of the estate tax in place could cover a quarter to
half of the shortfall. Some of the hole could be filled in by a modest
surtax on dividends or capital gains.
But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich by
making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from the
beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy are a
pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The
president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him.
The real costs of progressive indexing as currently conceived would be paid
by middle-income earners -- those with incomes in the range of $35,000 to
$60,000 a year.
Eventually, such earners would face benefit cuts of 20 to 30 percent from
what they are promised under the current program. And it gets worse: Rising
Medicare premiums are eating up an increasing share of middle-class Social
Security checks. Even without the cuts, Social Security payments will, over
time, barely cover an individual's Medicare costs.
Last, there are the trillions of dollars that Bush would have us borrow to
cover the transition to the private accounts he wants to set up. It's far
from clear that cutting future Social Security benefits for younger members
of the middle class and saddling them with mounds of new indebtedness would
make either them or the country better off. Anyone who is truly
conservative might have a question or two about whether this "solution" is
worse than the problem it is purportedly addressing.
Walking away from a rigged game is hard for some people, especially when
those running it and the respected opinion-makers who support them insist
that this time the game will truly be on the level. But, especially when
the danger involves gambling away the future of Social Security, the truly
responsible thing is to leave the table.