Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Social Security, Irrelevant Facts, and Contradictory Claims
As Bob Somerby points out, the repeated citing of an irrelevant "fact" (a "fact" that, as Bob also points out, keeps changing) does not "prove" anything about Social Security -- other than how willing our "liberal" pundits are to blindly spout conservative talking points. By the way: If you really want to make a conservative's brain freeze WRT Social Security, say these things, as I did in a lunchtime conversation recently:
"You know, on the one hand, Bush's people are using very pessimistic growth predictions of 1.7% or less per year, forever, to try to make the case that Social Security needs to be destroyed and its lucrative remains given to the the stock market. They're essentially predicting a permanent Great Depression. On the other hand, when they want to make the uninsured stock market seem less scary to us, Bush and his conservative Cato Institute pals suddenly do a 180. Instead of permanent depression, they start predicting perpetual stock market growth rates of between 6.5% and 7% -- growth rates which can occur only if the economy itself is growing at 4.5% to 5% per year, forever. So, Bushies, which is it? 1.7% or 5%? Permanent Depression or Permanent Boom? You can't have both at the same time."The 1.7% projection is from the Social Security trustees' report, which Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect references here. As for the rest, it's all found here. The cons will of course sputter "But you can't deny that something has to be done!" To which you calmly respond:
This will pull the fence-sitters to your side, or at least make them think a bit. And it'll make the die-hard cons mutter obscenities. Especially if you remind them that the biggest advocates for piratization are so rich that most of them have probably never paid payroll taxes in the past twenty years, if ever. (Update: I should have pointed out that I was talking to guys who thought they were financial experts, and so expected to hear numbers. For most folks, saying that Bush is claiming both Permanent Depression AND Permanent Boom Times -- at the same time! -- should suffice. And point out that a six-pack every two weeks is enough to save Social Security. But always have the numbers in reserve, in case you get called on them -- because you will be, eventually.)"Here are a few easy options:
1) Raise the FICA one/half of one percent. This works out to about a six-pack every two weeks for most people. 2) Eliminate Bush's tax breaks to the top 1% (you know, the people that earn more than all of the bottom 40% combined?). Hey, there's a war on anyway -- they should sacrifice, same as us. 3) Raise the upper-income limit on FICA eligibility from $88,000 a year to $100,000 a year. Any of those three options will be much easier to do, and be far less expensive -- not to mention far less damaging to the nation -- than Bush's plan to borrow trillions of dollars when we're already up to our ears in debt."
I should have pointed out that I was talking to guys who thought they were financial experts, and so expected to hear numbers. For most folks, saying that Bush is claiming both Permanent Depression AND Permanent Boom Times -- at the same time! -- should suffice. But always have the numbers in reserve, in case you get called on them.
: 1/11/2005 01:50:00 PM << Home
More blogs about politics.
