Well, the word's getting out that Social Security is on the table at the "fiscal responsibility summit" next week, and the natives are restless. Chris Bowers at TalkLeft accurately summarizes Peter Orszag's Social Security "reform" agenda from 2005, and points out that Peter's either changed his mind since then or is sugarcoating his description of what's in store in his remarks to Ben Smith, which read in part:
"Social Security faces an actuarial deficit over the next 75-100 years. In the past, I've resisted the term 'crisis' to describe that kind of situation," he said. "This is not quantitatively as important as getting health care done."
Which brings all of us back to the burning question: If there's no crisis, and Social Security isn't broken (it isn't) (it's REALLY not broken) (it's REALLY, REALLY not broken) (it's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY not broken), then why the hell are we "fixing" it? Nobody seems to know, except that the 2.4 trillion dollars in the Social Security trust fund sure would come in handy if one were in, say, a fiscal crisis.
Orszag can't get his story straight, and don't expect the deficit hawk participants at the fiscal responsibility summit to help him. Ezra Klein's not worried, saying the focus is on health care, especially Medicaid and Medicare, and Social Security isn't even going to come up. Riiiight. Ezra also slips in a characterization of Peter Orszag as the savior of Social Security, a counterforce to those nasty Social Security privatizers, and that everyone loves his plan. Chris Bowers shoots that one full of holes.
Read Orszag's plan. It's all there: reduction in benefits, increase in premiums, and lots of monkeying around with the cap and how taxed income above the cap will be treated differently than money from us regular working folks. And that's what is going to kill Social Security. You see, right now, everyone who puts in money gets benefits roughly in proportion to their contribution. Me and Warren Buffet will get pretty much the same check, and we've contributed roughly the same amount. Well, Warren probably put in more than I did, because I'm pretty sure he made at least $100k for a few years when I was a bit shy of that amount, but you get the idea.
Orszag's plan will shift this fundamentally fair system to one where the rich will be subsidizing the poor. And that will open the door to the argument that, "Well, us rich folks are paying for those poor folks to get their checks, so why can't we cut it back? What did they do to earn that check, anyway?" It changes Social Security from an insurance program to a welfare program, and undermines the claim that you're getting benefits that you deserve based on your own contributions to the fund. Once that unassailable fact is altered, Social Security, which has survived 70 years of efforts to dismantle it, won't last long.
I'm over 55, so my benefits aren't going to be the ones getting cut (at least, that's what Orszag's current claim now is). HOWEVER. Once Social Security becomes "that welfare program for old poor people", I can be pretty sure one month I'll go out to the mailbox and it'll be empty. And I'll have nowhere to turn, because I'll have been out of the labor market for decades, my education will be useless, and I won't have any enough other sources of income to keep a roof over my head and food in the house. I have lived on less than a thousand dollars a month - back when I had no health care needs and could make more money if I wanted to. When I'm 75 or 80, all those options will be gone. And where will Orszag be? Heh. I'm sure his portfolio will look fine.
Morning update below the fold... |
