About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Bush-Sununu Social Security Privateers: The Truth Hurts

by: Dean Barker

Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 08:30:42 AM EDT


Poor John E. is upset about the big bad DSCC bringing up his past:
The only ad Sununu said he strongly objects to is one from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that he said scares seniors about his plan to permit younger workers to invest some of their Social Security tax money in private investment accounts.

"I do find that a little disappointing. I would never run an ad like that," Sununu said.

Of course Sununu wouldn't run an ad like that. It's a too accurate reflection of the truth of his and George W. Bush's radical free marketeerism. But don't take my word for it, take fellow fiscal neocon Newt Gingrich:
President Bush began talking about the need for personal Social Security accounts when he was a candidate. He has continued to advocate that we can save Social Security by using the power of the market to increase savings far better than government can.

Now New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu and Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan have introduced in Congress what may become the most sweeping, visionary, breakthrough legislation to help enrich working people in my lifetime.

Of course, if you want the real truth about how the fiscally irresponsible Bush-Ryan-Sununu plan would have raided the treasury to pay for the shortfall created by these personal retirement accounts - accounts that would have been devastated by today's market conditions, btw - you don't need to look any further than this invaluable study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But if you don't want to wade through all that reality-based analysis, take a less radical Republican's word for it. George H.W. Bush in 1987, responding to a question about partially privatizing Social Security:

I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one.
Yeah, I'm gonna say both of these DSCC ads are totally appropriate for the "smartest man in the senate":
Dean Barker :: Bush-Sununu Social Security Privateers: The Truth Hurts
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
So, whatever happened to the principle of (4.00 / 1)
economies of scale?  When you've got a uniform product, retirement income, what's the advantage of parceling it out to be put together by a multitude of handlers?  Ditto for health care.  If you've got a uniform product, payment for medical services, what's the advantage of handing that function over to multiple handlers?

One third of Social Security benefits (0.00 / 0)
go to survivors of workers who die young. That's the "I" in  FICA.

The people who want to re-direct Social Security payments into a new investment account just ignore that basic fact. The 35-year-old worker's 401-K won't be much help to his survivors; his Social Security benefits will.

That's an entirely separate issue than the fluctuations in the market.


And also separate from the raiding of the treasury (4.00 / 1)
to pay for benefits in lieu of younger worker contributions.

So this plan stinks on three sides, at a minimum.

birch, finch, beech


[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox