How to judge for yourself on Social Security and other political matters.

It’s a simple thing, but as a people I think we’ve gotten out of the habit. Try this…. imagine that everything any politician says is simply a commercial, a sales pitch. Think how easy it is to read between the lines of what happens in ads – and apply that knowledge to your understanding and interpretation of things said in the public sphere.

Do some research on the topic – think about it as hard as you can. Consider it from different points of view – from the point of view of the people who will be most affected by it first of all. Then ask yourself…. is this American? is this ethical? who will be hurt by this? who will be helped by this? do the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa?

A rule of thumb – look at the actual effects of these proposals and laws, not the language they are written in. So called “tort reform” hurts victims of corporations and malpractice but doesn’t solve the economic issue it pretends to address. The “clean air” program – does it make the air cleaner?

Get in the habit of asking questions. Your mind is your own.

On Social Security, I like this very basic layout from James Carvile:

1. The goal of Social Security is to keep people out of poverty. It used to be that when you got old, you got poor. Social Security is not going to make you rich, but it’s not going to leave you poor either. That’s the point. Is it sexy? No. But don’t lose sight of how important a guaranteed “safety net” is for everyone’s well-being, especially older folks.

2. Social Security works. Social Security has cut elderly poverty by two-thirds. About two-thirds of retirees rely on Social Security for more than half of their income. One-third of them rely on it for 90% or more of their income. If Social Security checks stopped going out today, 48% of elderly Americans would immediately be thrown into poverty.

3. Right now, the very future of Social Security is at stake. Republicans say they actually want to save Social Security. Don’t believe it. They’ve never truly believed in the concept behind Social Security. They don’t like sharing risk over large groups of people. Their attitude is basically, “Let the rich people ignore it, provide incentives for young and healthy people to get out if it, and let the poor and the sick fend for themselves.”

4. George Bush’s plan for Social Security won’t work. Privatizing Social Security will require as much as a 40% cut in benefits. It will increase the deficit by $2 TRILLION. And it won’t extend the life of the trust fund or make the program any more solvent.

5. There are better plans that will protect Social Security for generations. Very smart people have proposed a number of reforms to Social Security that don’t require a cut in benefits or spending $2 TRILLION we don’t have. Some combination of these sensible, measured reforms can make sure Social Security lasts for many generations to come. Doesn’t that seem more reasonable than Bush’s reckless privatization scheme that won’t work?

(Thanks to Aunt Elaine and the Democrats)

For more detail, I recommend reading economist Paul Krugman, who writes for the New York Times. It’s a very simple thing.
Bush wants to argue that 2-1=4. It doesn’t, and Krugman has been trying to explain that for some time. Back in 2002, he put it this way:

“Social Security as we know it is a system in which each generation’s payroll taxes are mainly used to support the previous generation’s retirement. If contributions from younger workers go into personal accounts instead, the problem should be obvious: who will pay benefits to today’s retirees and older workers? It’s just arithmetic: 2-1=1. So privatization creates a financial hole that must be filled by slashing benefits, providing large financial transfers from the rest of the government or both. During the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush was able to get away with the nonsensical claim that private accounts would not only yield high, low-risk returns, but save Social Security at the same time. For whatever reason, few reporters pointed out that he was claiming that 2-1=4. But when it came time to produce concrete plans, the arithmetic could no longer be avoided. Sure enough, the plans laid out by Mr. Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security, though presented as confusingly as possible, involve both severe benefit cuts and huge “magic asterisks,” infusions of trillions of dollars from an undisclosed location. The extent of the damage is documented in a new Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report by Peter Diamond of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution.”

Actually, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites web site is fantastic! Take a look.

In his March1 column this month Krugman still says that creating private accounts is a mistake. Not even a hike in payroll tax to subsidize private accounts – as some are advocating – would address any urgent priorities or help the long-run finances of the system. Once private accounts are established, conservatives would use them to whittle down traditional benefits until they completely dismantle the system. And dismantling all such services is the aim of this fringe republican movement. It goes against the grain to think that any American power could be this uncaring, but guess what? We let down our guard, and now they are here.

The plutocracy is well under way. Fascism rising. Totalitarianism still being fought by many.

The good news is simply this: The more people know what the Social Security plans really mean, the less they support it. Most of this country does not want to revert to pre-FDR America.