Brad Reed (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} bradreed) wrote,@ 2005-01-12 18:41:00 |
|
Warning: Somewhat Serious Post Ahead
I've been doing some research on social security, and I have to say: I can see where the privatizers are coming from.
Yeah, I know the system isn't in "crisis" like Bush says it is, and the U.S. Treasury bonds that comprise the Social Security Trust Fund are far from "worthless I.O.U.'s." And sure, Medicare is in far, far worse shape.
But the reality is, in order to cash in those Trust Fund bonds, the government is going to need to raise extra money from somewhere, whether it comes from raising taxes or borrowing from foreign creditors. This will, of course, put more drag on our economy.
But in the end, all the well-reasoned privatization arguments of the Cato Institute are moot.
Why, you ask?
Because, no matter how good an idea is, it will be completely ruined if the person in charge of implementing it is George W. Bush.
Brad DeLong seems to be on the same page, and he puts it far more eloquently than I can:
Absolutely right. Bush could propose adopting 101 homeless puppies to live in the White House and I'd oppose it. Because, as much as my heart aches for the homeless puppies, I know Bush would forget to feed them.
I've been doing some research on social security, and I have to say: I can see where the privatizers are coming from.
Yeah, I know the system isn't in "crisis" like Bush says it is, and the U.S. Treasury bonds that comprise the Social Security Trust Fund are far from "worthless I.O.U.'s." And sure, Medicare is in far, far worse shape.
But the reality is, in order to cash in those Trust Fund bonds, the government is going to need to raise extra money from somewhere, whether it comes from raising taxes or borrowing from foreign creditors. This will, of course, put more drag on our economy.
But in the end, all the well-reasoned privatization arguments of the Cato Institute are moot.
Why, you ask?
Because, no matter how good an idea is, it will be completely ruined if the person in charge of implementing it is George W. Bush.
Brad DeLong seems to be on the same page, and he puts it far more eloquently than I can:
We've seen what Bush administration proposals turn into. We've seen it turn a surplus into a deficit. We've seen its idea of a farm bill. We've seen its steel tariff--bad economics, bad mercantilism, and bad politics. We've seen the recent corporate tax monstrosity. We've seen the Medicare drug benefit. We've heard from Paul O'Neill. We've heard from John DiIulio. The Bush administration is batting as close to a zero on economic policy as an administration can--and economic policy is the bright spot in this administration.
So one's assessment of what the Bush Social Security "reform" plan is going to be must be more-or-less like this: it may look cute and friendly now, but it won't stay cute and friendly for long. Somehow--we're not sure how--it's gonna get mean. It's going to get ugly. And it's going to get stupid. The chances that whatever the Bush administration proposes and the Republican Congressional leadership gets behind will be good for the country are indistinguishable from zero.
Absolutely right. Bush could propose adopting 101 homeless puppies to live in the White House and I'd oppose it. Because, as much as my heart aches for the homeless puppies, I know Bush would forget to feed them.
