The third rail

This article by James K Galbraith on Salon.com | Schieffer was wrong, Kerry was right is a must read.

It always amazes me that polititions and press pundits alike who should, and in many cases do, know better use Social Security to scare people. Galbraith sets out the facts and chastises "Mrs. Greenspan" in the process (if anyone should know better, it is she!)

I can remember the panels following the debate all a twitter about the fact that Kerry said that we could leave Social Security alone. Yet, the pundits like "Mrs. Greenspan" on MSNBC had no problem fawning over the Bush privatization plan that no one outside the whitehouse has seen! In fact, it is highly likely that no one on earth has seen this plan since it may not even have been thought through beyond some very high-level ideas.

Here's what Kerry said recently:

Senator John Kerry released the following statement today in response to reports that the president said he will “come out strong” for social security privatization should he be sworn in for a second term:

“Just yesterday, we found out that the president told his biggest and wealthiest donors about his big ‘January surprise.’ He’s going to ‘come out strong’ to fight for his plan to privatize Social Security. This might be a good surprise for the wealthy and well-connected, but it’s a disaster for America’s middle class. The president’s privatization plan for Social Security is another way of saying to our seniors that the promise of security will be broken.

“Once again, George Bush is out of touch. He just doesn’t get it. According to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office, his risky plan will force benefit cuts for seniors of up to 45 percent – that’s up to $500 a month less for food, clothing, and the occasional gift for a grandchild.

“Even the president’s own economic advisors say his plan will blow a $2 trillion hole in Social Security. And guess who will pay for it? You will. America's seniors are already facing higher prescription drug costs, record high Medicare premiums, and higher gas costs. With family budgets being stretched to the limit, the last thing seniors need is the president's ‘January surprise.’ That's a surprise we can all live without.

“When I am president, I won’t cut Social Security benefits, and I won’t raise the retirement age. I will restore fiscal responsibility so we can reduce the deficit and strengthen Social Security.”

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

None of the pundits will have to worry about Social Security benefits for them, their parents or their children because they are all F***ing millionaires. None of these pucilanimous twits will need their Social Security benefits to get by in their retirement. So what if Bush intends to gut Social Security by pursuing his "ownership society" (which is just a nicer way of saying: "f*** you, America. You're on your own. If you make the wrong decisions in investing your retirement monies, tough nuggies. If you get screwed by some corporate malfeasance such as happened to the Enron employees and investors, that's too friggin' bad. Better luck next time, bub.").

Privatizing Social Security is the rightwing nutjob response to address the lack of (GOP controlled) congressional and executive responsibility. If they could go cold-turkey on pork and pandering to corporate lobbyists and operate the government within its means, then none of these hairbrained schemes such as the "plans" offered by the Bush administration would be necessary.

Sure, it is quite true that after 2018, the FICA receipts will not equal the payments to beneficiaries, but that could be addressed in any number of ways. It shouldn't be necessary to raise the retirement age as Greenspan constantly suggests. How about raising the limit on contributions? For that matter, if they were really serious about the issues, then instead of spending the surplus on pork, they could pay down the national debt which over the long term is actually an investment.

Personally, I don't think that this is a case of "George Bush being out of touch". In fact, I think that Kerry should have expressed it as "George Bush doesn't have the best interests of the majority of Americans, the middle class, at the top of his agenda."

It scares me to think what a disaster a second Bush term would be for the nation and the world. King George would think that a win, even if stolen as last time, was a mandate for his misguided and dangerously inept policies, both domestic and foriegn.