Sunday, May 01, 2005
The Big Lie -- About Social Security Reform
Yes, another post on Social Security reform. But, after Bush's press conference, the Democrats and the mainstream media (MSM) are creating a target rich environment that just should not be avoided. There is a theory that says the bigger the lie and the louder you proclaim it, the more likely it is to be believed.
I agree with Michelle Malkin and Patrick Ruffini who think the MSM demagogues are in full throat about a Big Lie. The Big Lie here, of course, is that Bush would cut Social Security benefits. In fact, his plan does not cut any benefits for anyone. Clearly, for all current and near retirees, nothing will change - except gaining the assurance of continued benefits which can not be paid under the current system.
Nor will anyone, no matter how rich or poor, get less than they do now. What is being proposed is to peg, in the future, high earner initial benefits to increases in inflation, or cost of living, instead of to increases in wages. This change will not cut benefits; but it will prevent the very large cuts in benefits already hard-wired into the system and due to occur by 2041 under the current law.
In this article, Michelle Malkin nails the Big Lie about Bush's Social Security plan that's being spouted by the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News / Associated Press and others. What these mainstream media outlets have in common is their unerring instinct for finding and repeating Democratic party lines that have great sounding Big Lies. As Malkin puts it :
"Those who oppose Bush's indexing plan are arguing, in essence, that Social Security benefits to upper-income beneficiaries should continue to grow faster than the rate of inflation. That's reckless given the program's long-term fiscal problems."
As Patrick Ruffini correctly states, Bush is proposing increases in benefits and, furthermore, those future "benefits" that the papers are crying about simply do not exist. In his words, quoting the Washington Post, :
""Reduce future benefits for tens of millions of Americans." But those "future benefits" don't exist and under current law, can't be paid. Unlike a discretionary budget, where Congress has the ability to spend pretty much whatever it wants, Social Security cannot fund future benefits outside the Trust Fund, and by 2041, that Trust Fund will be able to pay 74% of "promised" benefits – a guaranteed benefit cut that is enshrined in current law.
Any reporter or politician who does not recognize these reduced benefits as the baseline for analyzing any and all changes to Social Security is simply being dishonest.
Even by Democrat standards, this Big Lie doesn't hold water. It used to be a cut when spending increases were held below inflation. But now it's a cut when Social Security benefits grow in real terms, and benefits for the poor grow even faster. "
As the folks at Social Security Choice put it, the White house may not have been surprised by the negative mainstream media reaction : "I'll bet they had this fact sheet ready before the President even started talking last night.
Setting The Record Straight: Social Security Reform Means Funded Benefit Growth, Not "Benefit Cuts"
Today, some opponents of fixing Social Security are suggesting that the President's proposals would result in "benefit cuts." This rhetoric recklessly disregards the facts about the President's proposal:
* Fact: Under the President's proposal, benefits would grow relative to today's levels. Future generations of seniors would receive benefits that are at least as high as seniors receive today (even after adjusting for inflation.)
* Fact: The Pozen proposal referenced by the President would allow for faster overall long-term benefit growth than can be paid by current-law Social Security.
* Fact: Under the Pozen proposal referenced by the President, lowest-income Americans would get the fastest benefit growth of all, significantly faster than inflation.
* Fact: Under the Pozen proposal referenced by the President, medium-wage workers would also receive faster benefit growth than the current system can pay.
* Fact: The current Social Security system can fund only 74% of promised benefits in 2041. The Social Security actuary's analysis of the Pozen proposal finds that at the same time, each of "Low Earners," "Medium Earners," and 'High Earners" would all receive benefits that are higher than the current system can pay.
* Fact: All of the above figures exclude income from personal accounts. Social Security Administration figures show that expected benefit growth will be even greater for those who choose to participate in voluntary personal accounts.
That about sums up the response to the media feeding frenzy about what they wish Bush had said instead of what he did say. While the rebuttal is all true and there are some attractions to the Pozen proposal for progressive indexing, I still prefer the Ryan-Sununu proposl. That alternative also achieves long-term SS solvency; but it relies, instead, on Congress mandating a self-imposed restriction to keep federal spending growth at the same level as the growth in the cost of living, at least for the next 8 years. And both of these options allow people to acquire real inheritable wealth in Personal Accounts, if they choose to do so.
OK, maybe the idea of real Congressional spending restrictions is wishful thinking on my part. But the key point is that there is plenty of room for serious debate about substantive options to solving this real problem. What is unacceptable is to deny the facts and demagogue on a Big Lie. Let's hope our political representatives can get there.
I agree with Michelle Malkin and Patrick Ruffini who think the MSM demagogues are in full throat about a Big Lie. The Big Lie here, of course, is that Bush would cut Social Security benefits. In fact, his plan does not cut any benefits for anyone. Clearly, for all current and near retirees, nothing will change - except gaining the assurance of continued benefits which can not be paid under the current system.
Nor will anyone, no matter how rich or poor, get less than they do now. What is being proposed is to peg, in the future, high earner initial benefits to increases in inflation, or cost of living, instead of to increases in wages. This change will not cut benefits; but it will prevent the very large cuts in benefits already hard-wired into the system and due to occur by 2041 under the current law.
In this article, Michelle Malkin nails the Big Lie about Bush's Social Security plan that's being spouted by the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News / Associated Press and others. What these mainstream media outlets have in common is their unerring instinct for finding and repeating Democratic party lines that have great sounding Big Lies. As Malkin puts it :
"Those who oppose Bush's indexing plan are arguing, in essence, that Social Security benefits to upper-income beneficiaries should continue to grow faster than the rate of inflation. That's reckless given the program's long-term fiscal problems."
As Patrick Ruffini correctly states, Bush is proposing increases in benefits and, furthermore, those future "benefits" that the papers are crying about simply do not exist. In his words, quoting the Washington Post, :
""Reduce future benefits for tens of millions of Americans." But those "future benefits" don't exist and under current law, can't be paid. Unlike a discretionary budget, where Congress has the ability to spend pretty much whatever it wants, Social Security cannot fund future benefits outside the Trust Fund, and by 2041, that Trust Fund will be able to pay 74% of "promised" benefits – a guaranteed benefit cut that is enshrined in current law.
Any reporter or politician who does not recognize these reduced benefits as the baseline for analyzing any and all changes to Social Security is simply being dishonest.
Even by Democrat standards, this Big Lie doesn't hold water. It used to be a cut when spending increases were held below inflation. But now it's a cut when Social Security benefits grow in real terms, and benefits for the poor grow even faster. "
As the folks at Social Security Choice put it, the White house may not have been surprised by the negative mainstream media reaction : "I'll bet they had this fact sheet ready before the President even started talking last night.
Setting The Record Straight: Social Security Reform Means Funded Benefit Growth, Not "Benefit Cuts"
Today, some opponents of fixing Social Security are suggesting that the President's proposals would result in "benefit cuts." This rhetoric recklessly disregards the facts about the President's proposal:
* Fact: Under the President's proposal, benefits would grow relative to today's levels. Future generations of seniors would receive benefits that are at least as high as seniors receive today (even after adjusting for inflation.)
* Fact: The Pozen proposal referenced by the President would allow for faster overall long-term benefit growth than can be paid by current-law Social Security.
* Fact: Under the Pozen proposal referenced by the President, lowest-income Americans would get the fastest benefit growth of all, significantly faster than inflation.
* Fact: Under the Pozen proposal referenced by the President, medium-wage workers would also receive faster benefit growth than the current system can pay.
* Fact: The current Social Security system can fund only 74% of promised benefits in 2041. The Social Security actuary's analysis of the Pozen proposal finds that at the same time, each of "Low Earners," "Medium Earners," and 'High Earners" would all receive benefits that are higher than the current system can pay.
* Fact: All of the above figures exclude income from personal accounts. Social Security Administration figures show that expected benefit growth will be even greater for those who choose to participate in voluntary personal accounts.
That about sums up the response to the media feeding frenzy about what they wish Bush had said instead of what he did say. While the rebuttal is all true and there are some attractions to the Pozen proposal for progressive indexing, I still prefer the Ryan-Sununu proposl. That alternative also achieves long-term SS solvency; but it relies, instead, on Congress mandating a self-imposed restriction to keep federal spending growth at the same level as the growth in the cost of living, at least for the next 8 years. And both of these options allow people to acquire real inheritable wealth in Personal Accounts, if they choose to do so.
OK, maybe the idea of real Congressional spending restrictions is wishful thinking on my part. But the key point is that there is plenty of room for serious debate about substantive options to solving this real problem. What is unacceptable is to deny the facts and demagogue on a Big Lie. Let's hope our political representatives can get there.
