[Mb-civic] The $600 Billion Man

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

Published on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 by the New York Times
The $600 Billion Man
by Paul Krugman
 

The argument over Social Security privatization isn't about rival views 
on how to secure the program's future - even the administration admits 
that private accounts would do nothing to help the system's finances. 
It's a debate about what kind of society America should be.

And it's a debate Republicans appear to be losing, because the public 
doesn't share their view that it's a good idea to expose middle-class 
families, whose lives have become steadily riskier over the past few 
decades, to even more risk. As soon as voters started to realize that 
private accounts would replace traditional Social Security benefits, not 
add to them, support for privatization collapsed.

But the Republicans' loss may not be the Democrats' gain, for two 
reasons. One is that some Democrats, in the name of centrism, echo 
Republican talking points. The other is that claims to be defending 
average families ring hollow when you defer to corporate interests on 
votes that matter.

Let's start with the case of the bogus $600 billion.

In his Jan. 15 radio address, President Bush made a startling claim: 
"According to the Social Security trustees, waiting just one year adds 
$600 billion to the cost of fixing Social Security." The $600 billion cost 
of each year's delay has become a standard administration talking 
point, repeated by countless conservative pundits - who have 
apparently not looked at what the trustees actually said.

In fact, the trustees never said that waiting a year to "fix" Social 
Security costs $600 billion. Mr. Bush was grossly misrepresenting the 
meaning of a technical discussion of accounting issues (it's on Page 
58 of the 2004 trustees' report), which has nothing to do with the cost 
of delaying changes in the retirement program.

The same type of "infinite horizon" calculation applied to the Bush tax 
cuts says that their costs rise by $1 trillion a year. That's not a useful 
measure of the cost of not repealing those cuts immediately.

So anyone who repeats the $600 billion line is helping to spread a lie. 
That's why it was disturbing to read a news report about the deputy 
commissioner of the Social Security Administration, who must know 
better, doing just that at a pro-privatization rally.

But in his latest radio address, Mr. Bush - correctly, this time - 
attributed the $600 billion figure to a "Democrat leader." He was 
referring to Senator Joseph Lieberman, who, for some reason, 
repeated the party line - the Republican party line - the previous 
Sunday.

My guess is that Mr. Lieberman thought he was being centrist and 
bipartisan, reaching out to Republicans by showing that he shares their 
concerns. At a time when the Democrats can say, without 
exaggeration, that their opponents are making a dishonest case for 
policies that will increase the risks facing families, Mr. Lieberman gave 
the administration cover by endorsing its fake numbers.

The push to privatize Social Security will probably fail all the same - but 
such attempts at accommodation may limit the Democrats' political 
gain.

Meanwhile, the party missed a big opportunity to make its case against 
increasing families' risk by acquiescing to the credit card industry's 
demand for harsher bankruptcy laws.

As it happens, Mr. Lieberman stated clearly what was wrong with the 
bankruptcy bill: "It failed to close troubling loopholes that protect 
wealthy debtors, and yet it deals harshly with average Americans 
facing unforeseen medical expenses or a sudden military deployment," 
making it unfair to "working Americans who find themselves in dire 
financial straits through no fault of their own." A stand against the bill 
would have merged populism with patriotism, highlighting Democrats' 
differences with Republicans' vision of America.

But many Democrats chose not to take that stand. And Mr. Lieberman 
was among them: his vote against the bill was an empty gesture. On 
the only vote that opponents of the bill had a chance of winning - a 
motion to cut off further discussion - he sided with the credit card 
companies. To be fair, so did 13 other Democrats. But none of the 
others tried to have it both ways.

It isn't always bad politics to say things that aren't true and claim to 
support things you actually oppose: just look at who's running the 
country. But Democrats who engage in these tactics right now create 
big problems for a party that has been given a special chance - maybe 
its last chance - to remind the country of what Democrats stand for, 
and why.

© 2005 New York Times, Co.

###


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   ---   George Orwell


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050315/f387938f/attachment.htm