  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Swift Boat Appointment Obscures the Real ThreatPosted on Apr 10, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—How much damage can an ambassador to Belgium do? Probably not as much as an ardent antagonist of Social Security might unleash in a top policymaking position at the agency that millions of Americans depend on. The stick-in-your-eye recess appointments that the Bush administration made while the Senate was on its Easter break aren’t a surprise. The president’s undisguised disdain for Congress isn’t exactly news. The headline-grabbing appointment was that of Sam Fox to be ambassador to Belgium—timed to avoid a vote and allow Fox to serve for the rest of President Bush’s term. Fox is a big Republican donor whose money helped support the infamously deceitful Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s attacks on Democrat John Kerry’s military record during the 2004 presidential campaign. After Kerry questioned Fox about this during a February hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the nomination was sinking and Bush withdrew it—only to put his man into the Brussels job after the Senate left town. It’s a captivating show of high-stakes political retribution, so naturally the imbroglio got a breathless round of cable-TV coverage. But the Fox appointment doesn’t have nearly the insidious potential to harm average Americans as the recess appointment of Andrew Biggs to be deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Biggs is more than just a proponent of Bush’s failed proposal to change Social Security from a system of guaranteed government insurance to an investment vehicle dependent on individual savings. He is an architect of the libertarian project to undermine public confidence in Social Security to clear the way for dismantling it. As Biggs sees it, Social Security is part of the broader “New Deal paradigm” of government supports for individuals that must be “overthrown.” He has drawn a parallel to Margaret Thatcher’s privatization of British industries, writing that Thatcher gave the British public an “incentive” to conclude for itself that state-run companies should be in private hands. Likewise, Biggs wrote in a 1999 article, flagging public confidence in Social Security’s financial outlook might help send this “liberal sacred cow to the slaughterhouse.” Biggs’ antipathy toward Social Security is so deep that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus—an economic moderate—refused to take up the nomination. Then Bush promoted him anyway (Biggs already was at the agency in a lesser job). Baucus said the public took Social Security privatization “off the table” by rejecting it unequivocally when Bush pushed it. It’s awfully hard to imagine that a Congress now controlled by Democrats—who resurrected their political fortunes in part by blocking Social Security privatization—would go along with a new private accounts scheme. But that doesn’t make Biggs harmless. “You’re putting a guy in as policy director who does not believe in social insurance,” says Barbara Kennelly, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and a former counsel to the Social Security commissioner during the Clinton administration. “He can undermine the program from within.” Biggs told me in an e-mail that he would separate his personal views from his job. He also said the agency’s role is to provide lawmakers and the public with information to help them “in reaching consensus” on Social Security. Never mind that a consensus already has been reached: Americans don’t want to trade guaranteed benefits for unpredictable investments. Remember, control over information—dare we call it propaganda?—is what conservatives see as crucial to convincing people to scrap the program. In 2005, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported on how Social Security’s official statements changed during the Bush era. While estimates of Social Security’s long-term solvency improved over four years, the agency’s rhetoric about its own fiscal health became increasingly dire. “Public assurances that the Social Security system faces ‘no immediate crisis’ have been eliminated from agency presentations, and descriptions of the role Social Security plays in keeping seniors ‘out of poverty’ have been dropped,” the study showed. “In their place, the agency now repeatedly warns that Social Security is ‘unsustainable’ and ‘underfinanced’ and ‘must change.’ ” Last year, Social Security trustees reported that the system’s finances are largely unchanged—Social Security has sufficient funds to pay full benefits for the next 34 years. Nonetheless, the report warned that surpluses would “soon begin to decline” and said that Social Security and Medicare aren’t “sustainable.” At this point, there’s nothing to be done about Biggs—except to show that public opposition to privatizing Social Security is insurmountable. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Scientists Study Memory Loss Among Politicians Next item: The Tragedy of John McCain Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Washington’s Overrated ‘Old Hands’
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By JNagarya, April 12, 2007 at 1:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Pseudo-intellectual and at-second-hand demagogic sloganizing propagandist “Cincinnatus” writes --
“Social Security is nothing but a ponzi scheme and a rip-off, and even a person who works minimum wage jobs their entire life would be better off with private investment than social security.”
That is the view of the proponents of “supply-side"/"trickle-down" Bushonomics, the basics of which are these:
1. Quit your job,
2. Spend all your savings, and
3. Your income will increase.
The greatest negative of the Internet is that it give a means for True believing (don’t confuse belief for thought) fringe dupes, to whom reality is a fantasy, to spew their anti-reality delusions.
The vast majority of We the people are for social security, so Biggs can only advance his extremist minority and pro-wealthy—and discredited—ideological agenda by lying. And that is the foremost skill of the Bush War Crimes Family and Delusion Factory: lying. “Cincinnatus” is either wealthy, or as close to absolute fool as a fool can get. I vote the latter.
Report thisBy Lord B, April 11, 2007 at 12:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Cincinnatus,
I guess you must be a millionaire since you’ve done so well in the stock market. And poor folk, like me, who’ve lost thousands and are poorer as a result, really shouldn’t be complaining about whether or not social security will be around when we retire.
I have news for you. Social Security taxes on those who earn more than 90K a year must be raised and that alone would be sufficient to keep S.S. solvent without any need to cut benefits to anyone.
The fact is, all men and women are NOT created equal. And privatizing S.S. would impoverish millions as citizens do their best to overcome their deficient knowledge about the stock market and watch their pool of funds dwindle and vanish right before their eyes.
S. Security is no rip-off as long as we make those earn more, pay more. It’s called progressive and it works.
#63265 by Cincinnatus on 4/11 at 12:32 am
Report thisSocial Security is nothing but a ponzi scheme and a rip-off, and even a person who works minimum wage jobs their entire life would be better off with private investment than social security.
By Cincinnatus, April 11, 2007 at 12:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Although Bush has proven himself moronic and incompetent in almost every issue, on this one subject of social security he has been absolutely correct and his appointment of Cato’s Andrew Biggs is commendable. I guess even a broken clock sometimes gets it right.
Social Security is nothing but a ponzi scheme and a rip-off, and even a person who works minimum wage jobs their entire life would be better off with private investment than social security.
For one thing, with private investment, pay-off of investments made over a lifetime of work would not cease with death, and many more people would be able to leave sizeable estates to their heirs under a private investment system than with the social security scheme. Given even a couple generations to operate, a private investment system would lift most impoverished families out of poverty.
It’s easy to understand people’s mistrust of big business in many contexts, but in this context, it’s hard to understand the reflexive trust so many are willing to place in big government. Mistrust of a private investment sysytem is not really mistrust of business, it is people’s mistrust of themselves. And that is as foolhardy as thinking Iraq was ripe for democracy.
Report thisBy DennisD, April 10, 2007 at 8:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Privatizing is just Wall Streeteze for skimming. I guess when our legalized criminals writeand enforce our laws they’re not crimes. That’s Washingtonese for serving the people.
Report thisBy Dale Headley, April 10, 2007 at 2:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This story obscures the larger picture: since the advent of Roosevelt’s populist policies, this bunch has been dreaming of the day they could return the United States to the time when there was a small, rich, upper class, a negligible middle class, and a huge underclass whose sole purpose was to accelerate the wealth accumulation of those at the top of the economic ladder. Mr. Biggs is only one of a determined phalanx of ultra-conservative ideologues who achieved serious relevance in the political landscape under Ronald Reagan, and have plotted determinedly ever since, through such heavyweights as Grover Norquist, to move the U.S. back to the “good old days” of the 1920’s. Under George W. Bush, they saw their fortunes skyrocket. With the crash and burn of their intellectually puny puppet leader, one hopes so will the ambitions of kleptocrats like Biggs.
Report thisBy GW=MCHammered, April 10, 2007 at 2:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Social Security is called an ‘Entitlement’ because ‘We The People’ are entitled to it; it’s ours; we paid for it; they mismanaged it. The Supreme Liberal Bush Administration (masked as conservatives) act as though rabidly spreading, Malignant Federal Government Disease and its Corporate Sponsor Disorder are their entitlement. They are wrong.
But if Bu$h-n-$am want to terminate Social Security, make The People a buyout offer - Hey, it’s the corporate-progressive thing to do. Even at 4% growth rate, they owe me about $100,000. And I’m just one of the ten million age 30 to 55 who abandoned the futile search for only underpaid work in Bush’s squalid economy so, I could use it. Luckily, I’m young enough to pay into the next Social Security rendition even after ‘08, when things can only get better.
Report thisBy James Yell, April 10, 2007 at 1:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Impeach Bush/Cheney. How many times to they have to give the American Public, American Citizens the finger. There is a reason that we have the impeachment process and never has an administration filled all the reasons as Bush/Cheney have. He is the President of the Religious extreme and the mega rich, he has even said he doens’t need to listen to what most Americans want because Jesus is telling him what he should do. I find this very odd indeed, as I don’t recall Jesus ever encouraged murder for self in richment and ego inflating.
Report thisBy Kim, April 10, 2007 at 9:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for the dead-on analysis of this appointment. Social Security isn’t as sexy as “Swift-boating” ambassadors so of course most of the coverage (including the Washington Post’s editorial page) missed the point. This is the appointment most likely to affect average Americans. The president will clearly try to get done through the “inside” what he couldn’t get support to do openly. It’s a disgrace.
Report thisBy Steve Hammons, April 10, 2007 at 8:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The more Bush-Cheney appointees we see out there the more we understand the twisted and unhealthy nature of some of these people.
Many such appointees seem to be corrupt ... corrupt on many levels: politically, financially, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually.
Americans and Congress would be wise to take a close look at many of these Bush-Cheney cronies.
Many of them, including ambassadors and State Department staff, present America to the world. These are some of the reasons the reputation of the US is so damaged internationally. These Bush-Cheney cronies cannot be trusted or believed.
For more on this:
“Mind Wars: Americans, global community are targets of deception on Iraq, threats to peace”
PopulistAmerica.com
http://www.populistamerica.com/mind_wars
Report thisBy Quy Tran, April 10, 2007 at 8:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
He’s the one who carries Bush/Cheney on his head. The ambassadorship to Belgium is the salary paying for a servant no more or less, but how does Belgium feel when it has a such kind of man in its soil ?
Report thisBy Kol Klink, April 10, 2007 at 7:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Biggs is just one more example of ‘those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.’
Report thisThe conservatives believe that a ‘free market economy’ will take care of all of humanity regardless of IQ, genetic inheritence, family life, etc. Their belief flies in the face of all facts to the contrary.
Do you suppose that they would like to run the experiment of the great depression over again and see if the results are different? Only the intervention and safety net programs instituted by FDR (like social security) prevented the good old US from going socialist or communist, probably the latter. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
By louis stroud, April 10, 2007 at 5:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
good job m.c., lets keep this thing to the forefront,the spoiled little boy has to have his way,the donors need this tax break, that is just about what it amounts to, no social security, so then they don’t have to pay into their employees account, all these years they keep trying to take it away from the little guy, now they have just about gave the whole country away, i’m just sick of it.
Report thisBy Pete, April 10, 2007 at 5:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Who can blame Bush for being disdainful of congress? If they had any backbone at all, they’d cut off funding for this war in Iraq right now and tell the likes of Bolton,Bush and Cheyney to stick their phony patriotism up their yellow bellied,draft dodging arses. As to Rove, an execrable excuse for a human being, They should be warming up Don Segretti’s old cell for him. For Bush, the jerk ought to be impeached for his lies to the American people regarding Iraq.
Report this