 |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Marie Cocco: ‘Scare Tactics’ on Social SecurityPosted on Sep 18, 2006By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—There’s something about the American public that makes President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney bristle. Cheney says he “can’t buy” polls that consistently show people have turned against the Iraq war and believe the turmoil there is creating more terrorists. Bush can’t buy the notion that his plan for turning Social Security into a system of private accounts died because the public simply didn’t want it. He plans to revive the idea next year, the president recently told The Wall Street Journal, because he believes that by then he’ll be able to “drain the politics out of the issue.’‘ It was precisely the politics of the issue that set congressional Republicans fleeing from the Bush privatization scheme last year as if a scantily clad dancer had wandered into one of their news conferences. The lawmakers, some of them confronted by angry protesters at the public meetings they held on Social Security revision, allowed the president’s plan to die an extraordinarily quiet death. There was not even a subcommittee vote on it. Bush is deaf to the death rattle sounded by his own party. He included the privatization scheme in his fiscal 2007 budget, showing that it would drain $721 billion from the Social Security trust fund as payroll tax money was diverted from the government’s social insurance program and funneled into private accounts. In July, the White House mid-session budget review reiterated the plan and its price tag. That was also when Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, who took over as House Republican leader after Tom DeLay’s inglorious exit, vowed to take up Social Security again after the midterm congressional elections, “if I’m around in a leadership role come January.” If someone were to point out that all of this sounds as though the White House and some very powerful Republicans on Capitol Hill fully intend to renew the push to privatize Social Security if they retain control of Congress in November, that person—perhaps me—would undoubtedly be accused of partisan “scare tactics.” One could reasonably ask why talking about Social Security is a scarier tactic than the White House campaign slogan, which amounts to “elect Democrats and die at the terrorists’ hands.’’ But never mind. In truth, congressional Democrats, as well they should, have seized on the president’s stated intentions and those of Republican lawmakers to warn that the GOP hasn’t really overcome its urge to “fix” Social Security by cutting guaranteed benefits and subjecting beneficiaries to the vagaries of Wall Street. “The president has told me personally that he does not intend ... to take this off the table as long as he is president of the United States,’’ Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told journalists during a conference call last week. If you don’t believe Rangel, then listen to the White House: “The president is deeply committed to fixing the Social Security system for future generations and he plans to address this important issue after the election,” spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said in an e-mail response to a question. And what if Democrats wrest control of the House from Republicans, which many independent analysts tentatively predict? “That’s not going to happen,” Bush snapped in his Wall Street Journal interview. To Bush, draining the politics out of the Social Security issue doesn’t mean engaging congressional Democrats in serious, bipartisan negotiations over how best to shore up a program upon which more than 50 million Americans depend. It means keeping Republicans in power. Then, once the election is finished, claiming that another Republican victory validates every one of his policies and plans, including those for Social Security. The irony is that if the Democrats do take control of the House, the 2005 Social Security debacle surely will be seen as an early marker along their path to political revival. The Bush plan did for Democrats what they rarely can do for themselves: It unified them. “If we had lost that fight, we as a party should be in the dustbin of history,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said at a breakfast for journalists in May. For now, the defenders of traditional Social Security have won. But that’s only because the public backlash against the president’s plan was louder and more politically powerful than any sound bite in Bush’s script. But remember, this is a president who simply does not read bad reviews. So expect a Social Security sequel next year. 
Previous item: Jabari Asim: Black American Males, or Short-Timers Next item: Gore Vidal: Reflections on 9/11 Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Why Do So Few Speak Up for Gaza?
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Nicola, September 20, 2006 at 1:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The real cause for concern in the Social Security debate is not, as Cocco argues, that the Bush administration is “ignoring” what is probably bad data compiled from push polls. Instead, the problem is that many people are still denying Social Security is in need of reform at all.
Just today, Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) issued a press release stating that democrats will move Social Security reform to the backburner because “after the November elections we need to focus on immediate, pressing economic concerns…”
What could be of more immediate concern than the fact that Social Security is facing a $13.4 trillion shortfall?
What is more pressing than the fact that the first baby boomer will retire in 2008, the costs of Social Security will skyrocket, and by 2017 the system will be paying out more money in benefits than it will collect in taxes?
The problems facing Social Security are real, present, and costly. Refusing to address them for the sake of politics or polling data is simply irresponsible, and anyone working and paying payroll taxes ought to applaud the fact that there are still politicians out there with the backbone to save Social Security through structural reform.
Report thisBy Loren, September 20, 2006 at 10:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
President Bush is right working people are an overpriced commodity. The young ones are good for cannon fodder, the middle aged are not worth overtime, and the elderly are costly. Medicare is being bled to his pharmaceutical pals, social security is a nightmare for even his grandfather Prescott hated FDR and fought for its demise. Maybe W can kill it with spending the assets on the war against terrorism and tax cuts for the elite and once and for all end death taxes for the princes and princesses of our corporate kingdoms. How can anyone not love a president who has done so much for the working class,( name one piece of legislation that benefited US) I am basically a republican, but he does not represent me or any other 99.5% of the country. I will vote democrat, the country needs a change of direction ie national health, and solidify social security without altering the substance.
Report thisBy Howard Kindel, September 19, 2006 at 2:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’ve thought for quite some time that Mr. Bush’s aim is to bankrupt the nation so he can present the American people with a choice: either he can protect us from the terrorists or he can contine to pay out Social Security. But he can’t do both. So you the people choose. And, of course, being the most easily manipulated people on earth, Americans will choose to scrap Social Security. That’ll be a sad day for sure; but I honestly believe it’s coming. I think the real, true legacy Mr. Bush wants to leave is that he’s the Republican who finally achieved what the Republican’s have always wanted: the total annhiliation of Social Security.
Report thisBy GW=MCHammered, September 19, 2006 at 1:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The same old incognizant yet fortune telling Bush rhetoric, drain the politics out of the issue. Translated he really means, drain the funds out of their living tissue. And by now, all workerbees should know it.
When discussing the future of Social Security, why does no one even mention the American population boom during the 1990s? It dwarfs the Baby Boomers roar, meaning more workers per retiree will exist than our government claims. And how about the ravaging decline in wages the past twenty years masked by the extensive credit giveaway? Were the federal minimum wage to follow historical growth from 1938 to 1978, it would be $15 per hour today. Instead, thats nearly the average factory pay. FICA withholdings on such normally progressive wages would more than fund the Social Security/Medicare system. Current retires should solidly back higher wages, as our declining wages soon will not even support them there is NO reserve. And we wont even discuss how our government juggled the systems accounting.
Government is our nations costliest entitlement program. It has outgrown all other industries for decades. Government is the entitlement program we no longer can afford!
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, September 19, 2006 at 8:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Erik is right when I worked for the county I paid more to social security than to the federal tax system. People who are paying taxes and then told thank you very much but when you retire you may have social security and you may not. It seems that corporations and rich people are the cream that rises to the top. In other words this country will be a land of the haves and the have nots just like in Merry Old Endland.
Marge from Vancouver Washington
Report thisBy Jo, September 19, 2006 at 6:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bring them on! Their worthless substitution for Social Security is terrible.
They have it written up. It calls for safe funds which won’t make anyone rich. It requires using most of the accumulated money to buy an annuity the last few years of work. Those annuities go to the insurance companies when you die.
There is no inheritance in his plan now. It is a joke.
Report thisBy Erik, September 19, 2006 at 5:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Democrats should make hay of this, but they won’t. When Bush et al. say there is no social security trust fund, they should be promptly arrested for treason of the worst kind. This is because what they are really saying is that the US Government cannot honor its debts, i.e., we are bankrupt. Have the leader of your country say that a few times and people who are really listening might just agree, which is economic Russian roulette.
Report this