Shameless semantics

[Amelia]

Shameless semantics

David Limbaugh

January 21, 2005

Two major changes have occurred since those long-forgotten days when Democrats were identifying Social Security as a crisis that had to be fixed immediately: The problem has gotten worse, and Democrats have proven they weren't sincere in the first place.

Bill Clinton pretended to be adamant about fixing the problem. Al Gore lectured his presidential opponent George W. Bush for not approaching the problem with sufficient urgency. Allusions to the ephemeral "lock box" were Algore's favorite sound bites.

One would think, then, that President Bush would be entitled to some credit for his willingness to tackle the notorious third rail of politics. He has little to gain politically from pursuing a solution.

Think again. In response to President Bush's plan to add a private accounts option, Democrats insist that two rights make a wrong. That is, even if the president's reform would enhance the average American's retirement security, it must not be permitted if it would also help big business, which Democrats openly despise. You see, it's not just the whack jobs on the Left, but the entire Democratic leadership apparatus that is saying the president is doing this as a sop to Wall Street.

But, alas, Democrats are not limiting their objections to their familiar class warfare tactics. Just like their about-face on assessing Saddam Hussein as a threat that had to be removed, they are now shamelessly, brazenly denying there is a serious problem with Social Security that needs serious attention.

Like little kids they are arguing over the semantics of whether we are currently facing a "crisis" in Social Security or just a major "problem."

Who cares what you call it? This system is guaranteed to be deep in the red in less than 15 years mostly because of demographic shifts that will result in insufficient numbers of workers to support increasing numbers of retirees. In addition, because of a "well-meaning" adjustment introduced by the Carter Administration in 1977, initial benefits are indexed to wages so that each generation of retirees receives higher real benefits -- more than the cost of living -- than the previous generation.

Beginning in 2018, absent major reform, the federal government will have to tap general revenues to subsidize its Social Security benefit payments, eventually in staggering amounts approaching $10 trillion. A compounding factor is that the Social Trustees report estimates that we will lose $600 billion for every year we ignore the problem. Yet this isn't a serious enough issue to demand our immediate attention?

How many times have we heard Democrats -- latter-day deficit hawks that they are -- rail against President Bush's deficit spending? How many times have they feigned apoplexy over the spiraling national debt?

Well, folks, they must not mean what they say, because this looming Social Security problem is purely and simply about an inevitable explosion of the national debt. It's only avoidable if we reduce benefits, reduce other federal spending and/or raise taxes -- which at some point will be counterproductive on the revenue side.

Whether you call it a problem or a crisis, it is getting worse, and it's nothing short of immoral to put off working on solutions. The only conceivable reasons Democrats are in denial about it is that they either don't want to allow reform under a Republican president or don't want to fix it at all because they might lose one of the main weapons in their fear-mongering arsenal.

If they join Republicans in solving the problem, they won't be able to scare seniors away from the GOP with this issue any longer. It's no different from their approach to school choice. If they join Republican reformers in freeing inner-city children, largely minorities, from their failed public schools, they'll no longer be able to paint Republicans as ogres on education. And, they'll risk losing the indispensable political support of the education establishment.

The Social Security "crisis" was the subject of my first syndicated column six years ago. We've done nothing to fix it in the meantime, and it's getting worse.

President Bush is the first leader in a long time with the courage to do the right things even when they aren't popular and even when they lend themselves to the worst kind of vicious demagogic opposition. But he's also a guy who won't be intimidated by his opponents' tactics.

His opponents, including some on the Republican side, need to become part of the solution or get out of the way of those who are.

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Who cares what you call it? This system is guaranteed to be deep in the red in less than 15 years mostly because of demographic shifts that will result in insufficient numbers of workers to support increasing numbers of retirees. In addition, because of a "well-meaning" adjustment introduced by the Carter Administration in 1977, initial benefits are indexed to wages so that each generation of retirees receives higher real benefits -- more than the cost of living -- than the previous generation.

Beginning in 2018, absent major reform, the federal government will have to tap general revenues to subsidize its Social Security benefit payments, eventually in staggering amounts approaching $10 trillion. A compounding factor is that the Social Trustees report estimates that we will lose $600 billion for every year we ignore the problem. Yet this isn't a serious enough issue to demand our immediate attention?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Hmm, interesting. Leave aside his whole tone - that's his prerogative - but he seems to be factually challenged. The figures that have been cited for the time when Social Security can't pay its commitments, depending on the assumptions, are 2042 (37 years hence) and 2052 (47 years). So he wants to use unfactual estimates, and then entitle his article 'shameless semantics'?

It's important to do something about Social Security, certainly - that's been an issue ever since the Baby Boom, and the only way to fix it would be - gasp - massive immigration. But it's not just class warfare and wealth envy to suggest that the privatisation solution is fraught with potential problems. Look how well utilities privatisation is working...

[Dr. Shane]

First off, David Limbaugh is an idealouge. Nothing wrong with reading a column of his but read it in context. He has an agenda and isn't going to be fair to the other side.

Second, your estimate of 2042 and 2052 sounds more like the time the crisis will be ending, not starting. The crisis is going to happen (if it happens) when the baby boomers retire. However the exact year can't be known because we don't know when those in this group are going to die nor have we figured in how immergration is increasing our population and thus Social Security revenues.

[Bravus]

OK, after looking carefully at a number of sources (it really is amazing how polarized the debate is in the media: I couldn't find a single site that was just offering a straight report of the facts, all were strong polemics in one direction or another), I think we're both right. The projections are that by 2018 Social Security will start paying out more than it takes in, and by 2042 or 2052 it will be at the point where the reserve has been run down until it can no longer fully fund benefits (benefits are indexed to wages, so they go up over time).

As I said above, I don't maintain that nothing should be done - it's a problem and it needs a solution. But I see two problems with the privatisation solution: (1) it doesn't take class envy to see that if a trillion dollars goes into financial industry fees and charges (which is the estimate most seem to agree with), that money doesn't go into retirement benefits and (2) the current system is a social system - current workers support current retirees - but the investment account system is a future system - the individual saves for his/her own retirement. In the lag, government will have to borrow to pay benefits to current retirees, increasing government debt even further.

Anyway, I'm an Aussie in Canada, so I'm interested, and I feel for the American people, but the decisions are yours to make. I just want to keep kicking in a different perspective, hopefully a less-partisan one. And yep, I was wrong to *just* use the 2042 number the Democrats are using, the same way Limbaugh was wrong to *just* use the Republicans' 2018 number. Fortunately a little research shows that both are important dates in the debate, and both should be out there.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

OK, after looking carefully at a number of sources (it really is amazing how polarized the debate is in the media: I couldn't find a single site that was just offering a straight report of the facts, all were strong polemics in one direction or another),

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yeah, now you know the trouble I go through when trying to post both sides of something and get shafted when some topics come out lopsided. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue1.gif" alt="" />

[Bravus]

This article is as slanted as the rest, despite its author's pleadings, but it's a fun read.

http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050121column.php

(And can I just remind everyone (maybe our Golden Retriever especially) that it's probably safer from a copyright and intellectual property perspective to link to content from other places (Golden Spider?) than to copy and paste it here? Even with proper attribution, there's a (small) risk of Club Adventist getting sued if we use other people's work without permission. Yes, it's less convenient to have to go 'off site' to read something, but it's safer in the long run.)

[Amelia]

Sheesh, what is it with you men. That man who claims to be my husband was on me about that today too. I think Im tossing in the towel.

[Bravus]

Dang, sorry... timing, I guess. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad25.gif" alt="" /> I totally appreciate your input, and I promise I'll follow the links! Please keep the towel unthrown - especially if it's all you're wearing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Your guy might be right, though... I guess I'm just hypersensitive about it as an adacemic. I'm not sure the testosterone has much to do with it, actually... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Nicodema]

Come on you two, group hug. Dangit.

[Neil D]

Nico,

If all Amelia is wearing is a towel, I don't think a group hug is appropriate....

[Nicodema]

(*thwaps you on the head with fierce smackings and whackings*)

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

(*thwaps you on the head with fierce smackings and whackings*)

---

And the forum's title has been reconfirmed again....