I just listened to an interview by
Terry Gross on Fresh Air with labor economist Jared Bernstein, coauthor of the soon-to-be-published report "The State of Working America".
He had much of interest to say, and I recommend that you download the audio (available after 3pm ET today).
One particular talking point to remember is his revelation that the Bush recovery has flipped previous recoveries: Whereas in the past, economic growth in a recovery was typically 70% in wages and income vs. 30% in corporate profits, in the Bush recovery those growth shares are reversed.
Bernstein also points out that privatizing Soc Sec. will further widen the gap between lower/middle income retirees and the wealthy, as the current system is progressive and provides a relatively greater return for lower income retirees, while the private market will generate more benefit for wealthier (more experienced investors) retirees.
More below the fold...
Okay, so this is not so much an epiphany as just another firm number to whip out in your verbal spars with wingnuts.
Also, Ron Elving on NPR.org compares the "where's the fire" strategy of William Kristol and other conservatives during the health care crisis debate of the post-1992 election, with a similar strategy coming from the left to blunt the momentum for Soc Sec. reform. I (blushing modesty) myself have pointed out here and in other forums how the GOP has become minimalist on some problems (global climate change, e.g.) while maximalist (CRISIS--OHMIGOD!) on Social Security funding.
But of course, the consistency is in defending the wealth and power of the GOP/Corporate oligarchy. Ideology is flexible; obedience to your masters is not.
Elving points out (as others elsewhere including DKos have):
Down the road, aging baby boomers will steadily drain the surplus in the current fund, and Social Security will need some help to stay afloat. But it's a long road, at least four decades long. Retiring Democrat Sen. Bob Graham of Florida has calculated that the current formula can keep Social Security fully funded until after 2050.
Along the way, the crisis deniers say, the shortfall might be addressed by incremental means: delaying benefits or raising payroll tax rates, or extending the payroll tax beyond the current cutoff ($90,000 in 2005). These are, of course, precisely the palliatives that President Bush has ruled out -- preferring to use the specter of eventual shortfall as an opportunity to privatize.
It is true that the Social Security and Medicare programs together now spend more than they take in. But that's because of the current hemorrhage in Medicare.
Indeed, the 2003 Medicare reform pushed by the Bush administration added a prescription drug benefit for seniors with no funding mechanism. That benefit alone now represents a substantially larger unfunded liability over time than Social Security does. Why isn't that a crisis?
(Emphasis above is mine)
Another talking point Elving raises is that most young and mid-aged working people (including me) are building two-tiered retirement: Their Social Security and a 401-K retirement fund that is already in the hands of the private stock market risks. Why put ALL of your retirement security into the private risk market?
And lastly, I love the analogy used at American Progress Action Fund:
Bush's privatization plan is nothing more than a con: "Let me have twenty bucks, give you ten in return, and you can make up the difference and possibly more at the track."
Social Security is the most successful social program in U.S. history. It has led millions of elderly Americans out of poverty and has protected the disabled and orphans. President Bush--the same president who squandered a $5 trillion budget surplus to provide tax cuts for the wealthy--now wants you to give it all up for a hit-or-miss private account. Americans would be wise to avoid this con.