In recent days several center-left blogger/columnists have suggested that progressives should be happy to cut a deal now on Social Security and other issues related to the budget. The argument is that the cuts being put forward by the commissions are not that onerous, they don’t involve privatization, and we could be facing much worse in the future.
While politics always requires compromise, this position misreads the economic and political landscape in four important ways.
1) The problem of the moment is unemployment. This really is a disaster for large segments of the population. That is not just a talking point.
2) The bad guy in this story is Wall Street. The financial sector is a cancer on the economy. This is precisely the moment when we should be on the attack, not running for shelter.
3) Health care costs are the real problem. This is not cheap rhetoric; health care is what needs to be fixed.
4) The overwhelming majority of the non-pundit population agrees with us.
The current economic situation really is a disaster for tens of millions of people across the country.
More than 25 million people are unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work altogether. For most of these people, every day is a struggle to support their family and hold onto their home. The projections do not show any substantial improvement in this situation for years.
The priority for policy must be getting people back to work. This means increasing the deficit for the next several years, not reducing it. Cheap talk from politicians about fiscal responsibility may get votes, but it will not put people back to work. In the current situation, we will need larger deficits (or work sharing) to generate jobs.
Remember, these people are unemployed not because they did anything wrong, but because people like Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and others in policymaking positions messed up on their jobs.
Following directly off this point, it is amazing how right in front of our own eyes, the Wall Street gang has managed to divert the public’s attention from the wreckage caused by their greed and incompetence to the “entitlement problem” (i.e. Social Security and Medicare). This is the moment where we should be looking to restructure and downsize the financial industry.
The financial reform bill was a net positive, but it was not nearly enough to do the job. Profits and bonuses in the financial sector are as high as ever. Remember, finance is an intermediate good, like trucking. We aren’t made better off by having more finance in the same way that more trucks on the road don’t make us better off. A large financial sector is prima facie evidence of an inefficient financial sector.
We should be taxing the financial sector both to reduce the resources wasted in this sector (and the ridiculously high incomes) and to raise revenue for the government. This is just common sense; even the IMF is now arguing this position.
The third point is that there really is no deficit problem. The problem is health care. That is not just rhetoric; this is what the data show. In 1980, non-interest spending was 18.8 percent of GDP. President Obama’s budget projects non-interest spending at 18.6 percent of GDP in 2020. This means that in 40 years spending has actually fallen slightly as a share of GDP. The story of an out of control federal budget is a complete fabrication.
In the longer term spending is projected to rise, but this is because our health care costs are projected to go through the roof. We currently spend more than twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy countries. Over the next 20 years our spending is projected to rise to 3 or 4 times as much as the average for other wealthy countries. Since we pay for more than half of health care spending through the government, naturally this will create budget problems.
However, it is a serious distortion of reality to portray this as a budget problem. The problem is health care. We have to fix it. Of course it is not easy; the industry groups and the doctors’ lobbies are very powerful. But, let’s be honest, the problem is health care. We can take care of the budget by cutting back or eliminating government programs, but if we haven’t fixed health care, this will just mean that middle class people will not be able to afford health care. (FWIW, here’s one of my plans.)
Finally, the public is overwhelmingly on our side on this one. It is the pundits who are on another planet. It is not just labor and progressive types who don’t want to see cuts to Social Security and Medicare, this is also the position of the right. The balance the budget pledge of Grover Norquist’s organization, Americans for Tax Reform, explicitly promises to not cut Social Security and Medicare below their baseline levels of spending. This position undoubtedly reflects the sentiments of supporters of the organization.
In other words, left and right stand together on protecting Social Security and Medicare. It is only the DC deficit-hawk industry that wants to cut these programs that are so essential for the country’s middle class.
There may be a time for compromise, but this ain’t it. Let’s bring the debate back to the real world where tens of millions are suffering because of the greed and incompetence of many of those leading the charge on deficits. When we have a discussion that is based on economic and fiscal reality then we can talk compromise, but we have a long way to go before we have this table set right.



51 Comments

Thank you. Of course, if the government wants to reduce the deficit, or not increase it, but still create jobs, it can let tax cuts for the wealthy expire. It can end the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq. It can close military bases all over the world. It can close Gitmo. It could get the TSA out of our privates.
Everything you say is well and good Mr. Baker. But why are you telling us? The Fascists in Washington don’t listen to us.
I don’t find it attractive when people decide to give away a few body parts, pints of blood, days of life, or the security and dignity, of other people. The middle class has been robbed and raped already. Enough is enough. No ‘compromise’!
Compromise on Social Security and Medicare? Why My Center-Left Friends are Wrong
I see nothing wrong with a compromise dean, but here’s MY compromise;
“the wealthy pays back only 3/4 of what they owe to the fund since THAT’S where most of their tax credits came from”
there
I think that’s a nice starting point right there
Thank you, sir. We simply must move this discussion to an increase in Social Security benefits, fully available to younger retirees; not the other direction as the Catfoodies would have it.
Dean, I appreciate your economic perspectives, but when you suggest that we ought to give retirees a financial incentive to leave the U.S. and live somewhere else in order to reduce Medicare expenses, it begins to sound like Jonathon Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”. How about if we change the method of medical delivery in this country to duplicate the success rates in other countries? The whole idea of a “health care” system based on employer-provided insurance was always ludicrous–and expensive; now that millions of Americans have lost their jobs, our system has gone beyond ludicrous to dangerous.
Thank you. Of course, if the government wants to reduce the deficit, or not increase it, but still create jobs, it can let tax cuts for the wealthy expire
and there is the progressive’s problem right there
these weren’t “tax cuts” they were middle class assets given to the wealthy at infra structure expense, at medicare expense, at medicaid expense, at jobs expense
they weren’t “cuts”, that’s OUR money they were given and I WANT MY MONEY BACK!
The big problem I have with compromise is that it will mean a tax hike, so that there will be more money coming in than is going out to beneficiaries. The money will go into the Trust Fund, and will be spent to keep taxes on the rich low. That is a very bad thing to do.
To put perspective on the tax morass, how many of the Fortune 500 Co’s paid any corporate tax into the US coffer…! I know the biggest have paid zilch…! *gah*
Compromising with loan sharks and other gangsters is hardly rational. To Hell with the deficit hawks and tax cutters.
Apart from that point, Baker is right about unemployment. For those with the short end of the straw, a low-growth, high-unemployment, finance dominated economy is not to be preferred to, say, being wrapped in razor wire. But a low-growth, high-unemployment, finance dominated economy is just where we’re headed and where Barack “The Beleaguered Pragmatist” wants to take us.
The United States has never achieved a “full employment” economy. It’s about time Americans in general and especially the elite face up to this fact with the honor and dignity the problem demands.
I wonder if the ‘smart money’ is or has made plans for establishing a commodity exchange market for indentured labor?
Great post. Thank you, esp. this part:
“We should be taxing the financial sector both to reduce the resources wasted in this sector (and the ridiculously high incomes) and to raise revenue for the government. This is just common sense; even the IMF is now arguing this position.”
I hate that we owe China, Mexico, and who knows where else. I understand how bad it is for our country to have so much debt. The problem is that right now our country is in CRISIS!
We have libraries, schools, and other public entities shutting down. We have families that shutting down too. Small children have no idea where they are going to be sleeping tomorrow night because of the employment situation. There are people like myself, that have been unemployed for three plus years with no work in sight.
Now is not the time to beat people over the head about debt and threaten to take away the last foot of rope they have in Social Security. If DC wants an uprising, they will certainly get one if they continue to take from the people.
Whom are these center-left blogger/columnists ?
Does anyone know, is Johnathan Alter one of ‘em ?
If he is …this is the same play the WH used during the HCR-debate send him out on TV with the talking point”progressive should cave…er compromise” ,you can bet if Alter is one of ‘em championing this so called compromise,he is working on behalf of the wimp in the WH.
com·pro·mise
–noun
1.
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
What is the compromise? We accept cuts to important social programs at the worst possible time in return for what exactly? What are the Republicans conceding? What is Wall Street conceding?
“‘This is just common sense; even the IMF is now arguing this position.’”
It takes some work and a lot of chutzpah to stake out a position to the right of the IMF!
“What is the compromise? We accept cuts to important social programs at the worst possible time in return for what exactly? What are the Republicans conceding? What is Wall Street conceding?”
The GOP/Wall Street compromise: They’ll not make outrageous demands for one-hour once the compromise goes into effect.
Thank you Dean.
You are spot on stating that the intended purpose of this charade industry is to divert the public’s attention from the wreckage caused by their greed and incompetence. Just like the purpose torture imbroglio was to divert the public’s attention from the heinous crimes of the previous administration.
Thanks Dean.
I slap my forehead whenever I read a post about how this deficit cutting plan more ‘progressive’ than that one. In reality, they are all bad because the entire premise is faulty.
Or it may be similar to the health care/health insurance industry compromise. You cut the public option and drug reimportation and we won’t attack health care reform directly*.
* we’ll get the Chamber of Commerce to do it for us!
David Dayen is upstairs!
Government Shutdown in December?
I’ve noticed a few.
We had this one here at FDL:
http://my.firedoglake.com/ericlaursene/2010/11/17/schakowskys-deficit-reduction-plan-is-game-changer/
And over at the Roosevelt Institute site there was:
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/19/these-times-call-for-meeting-in-the-middle-27573/
Granted, I think Bo Cutter is entirely right-wing despite posting at the Roosevelt Institute’s New Deal 2.0 site. At best, you could call him the left side of the right-wing.
Gopers think Unemployment will end when the unemployed go back to work. ( because their basically slackers.) They also believe Global warming is caused by sunspots and The Earth is 6K yrs. old and Evolution is bunk. So we can forget about any compromise with this irrational group.
Excellent post. I’ve been plugging Dean’s book “the Conservative Nanny State” all day and in my Monday blog post. Required reading along with Robert Reich’s “Aftershock”
A coherent liberal answer to our economic malaise is emerging. Not a minute too soon.
“In recent days several center-left blogger/columnists have suggested that progressives should be happy to cut a deal now on Social Security and other issues related to the budget. The argument is that the cuts being put forward by the commissions are not that onerous, they don’t involve privatization, and we could be facing much worse in the future.”
And just like most of the country is being stupid for continuing to listen to the “experts” on the war in Iraq even after they’ve been shown to be wrong, any “progressives” that listen to these clowns would be equally as stupid as they have proven to be equally as wrong. Remember we should take the health care plan as a good first step??
Yeah, that worked out real well, didn’t it?
Because right now, the Democrats biggest problem is they aren’t compromising enough.
Bullshit, horseshit, dogshit, you name it, IT’S FLAT OUT WRONG.
If folks are going to continue to choose to listen to people that have been proven wrong, then they deserve whatever consequences arrive due to that. Including losing your entire social security, because if you think the PTB will stop going after the rest of social security after this “compromise” then I’ve got some ocean beachfront property to sell you in Kansas.
No one on the Commission, including Schakowsky, appears to realize that there is no deficit problem. All of them assume there is a problem and bloviate concerning how to solve it.
There is no excuse for any of them not to know that there is no problem, as anyone with any education in economics will confirm. Therefore, I can only conclude that they’re too stupid to pour piss out of a boot or they’re lying about the existence of a problem in service to a personal agenda that likely includes greed. Peterson (who isn’t actually a member of the commission, but might as well be because of his influence), Simpson, and Bowles want to transfer the $2.4 Trillion in social security to their billionaire friends through various not so clever machinations. In other words, they are thieves. They also want to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation.
I don’t know what Schakowsky’s agenda is and I don’t much care because the issue isn’t where, what, and how much to cut. The issue is there is no issue and these assholes need to be sent packing along with the jerk who came up with the bright idea to create the commission.
That would be Barack Obama.
Fine, they can raise the retirement age as far as they want, but ONLY IF they also pass and enforce anti-discrimination laws that cover everyone (with the possible exception of pundits and Serious People, who clearly are never going to need protection).
I must be getting more cynical as I get older, because I don’t see anything that’s happened the last 10 years or more, as “mistakes” but rather all intentional policies. You see mistakes and failures, I see them all doing exactly what they intended to both with the economy and with everything else. These elected rich aren’t making mistakes. They aren’t that out of touch with reality, like their little kabuki Dem vs. Rep act. This is all going the way they planned it. Recessions are started on purpose, not as some magical thing that just happens without anyone knowing why. Far too many people put their faith in these selected politicians.
Thanks for your clear straight forward words on this.
“While politics always requires compromise”
No it doesn’t, but taken that as a prerequisite only encourages extreme demands. If you’re going compromise yourself into bad public policy, you’re better off not compromising at all and you automatically take it as a foregone conclusion that you must take a deal, the other side will be as extreme as possible so that they get what they want and you don’t get what you want.
We keep hearing the myth propagated that the only way to seriously cut the deficit and debt is through cuts in “entitlements”. That is a myth. We have more forms of corporate welfare in the US than anyone of us could ever begin to comprehend. And they add up to hundreds of billions of dollars.
1 -If we want to cut the debt, start with letting the govt negotiate with big pharma. We’re the only industrialized nation whose govt doesn’t negotiate pricing on drugs. Or at least provide reimportation from Canada.
2 – Tax derivatives. Plenty of Americans won’t mind hearing that credit default swaps are being taxed. Or at least make hedge fund managers pay income tax. They don’t pay currently because they take their salary in cap gains.
3 – Stop subsidizing Monsanto and the rest of the agribusiness giants. Stop subsidizing factory farming.
4 – The payroll taxes should not be regressive. There should be no contribution ceiling. People with 6 figure salaries should have payroll taxes assessed against entire salary.
That is just the start…
Robert Naiman is upstairs!
UN Troops in Haiti – Timetable for Withdrawal?
Great Post!!!
USA MILITARY BUDGET was design to fight the Soviet Union? no one told them the USSSR is out of business.
Watch out for Senator Wyden. You may not like his compromise.
Hear Hear! I’m reminded of the cartoon with two skinny vultures in a tree. One of them is saying “fuck patience, I’m gonna kill something”.
It seems to me that if we were to raise the retirement age, a deep and wide reconceptualizing of what a working life/career means would be in order. Affordable education for true life long learning, more flexible career opportunities for both young and old.
For example, at 46 I believe I’ve finally found my life’s calling, and would love to go back to school and start a new career. Can do, and not to make excuses, but these kinds of things are pretty unfeasible in our current system.
If the new money – and the old money -is invested in non-government bonds and other real assets, rather than in government bonds, the money is no longer available to fund wars and tax cuts for the rich.
Just a little confused – the first link had nothing other than a reasonable discussion (the fact of longer lifetimes post age 65 relative to 1940 and 1977 versus the fact that most of the increase did not accrue to the working man versus cost of system with no normal retirement age change) – I posted that I felt that not including national health with price controls on basic care services, and not including removing all of the wage cap – so that it would apply to total FIT income – was not progressive. Most I think agreed with that position.
On the second link to the Bo Cutter article, he is more liar than center left or center right. I do not recall my progressive 101 class saying that progressives wanted to have “lower marginal rates” for the rich, I do not recall flattening the range between the rate the near poor pay relative to the rich as retaining a “progressive rate structure”.
I do not recall learning that lower tax rates on the corporations that the rich own was a lower tax rate on me as I may have a right to pension that invests in stock – so the lower rate making the stock go up made it more likely that the company will retain its pension benefit (reality is that defined benefit plans pass no investment risk to the pensioners, by definition, and that companies are cutting costs – in this current era when few companies pay tax – by ending defined benefit plan benefits). I do not recall being told in those classes on progressive values that a mortgage interest deduction screws the middle class as they try to own a home – indeed the claim the effect only hurts the rich is LOL since the deduction is already capped so they do not benefit as much as the average upper middleclass person.
He states “There would be close to no effect on the bottom 60% of all incomes” because the benefit actually works for those with funds to buy a home – and that is only 60+% of the people.
I found Bo to be a liar – not “center-left” or “center -right”.
I think Schakowsky is using the deficit debate to bring the discussion back to fairness and health care cost containment via single payer – at least that is how I read it.
Both were examples of articles on sites which are by and large considered progressive sites.
The FDL diary starts out:
“Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s deficit reduction proposal is a game changer: a serious, moderate, balanced blueprint for addressing the nation’s long-range fiscal challenges, by a leading progressive lawmaker.”
And ends with:
“When progressives offer serious, moderate, and concrete suggestions for cutting the deficit, they are ignored. Schakowsky’s proposal offers the deficit commission a chance to disprove this.”
To me, this does not qualify as neutral language. It sounds more like a sales pitch.
As for Bo Cutter… yeah he’s a trip. I don’t understand why he contributes at the otherwise progressive New Deal 2.0. By and large, his economics are that of a Wallstreet neoliberal. And neoliberal economics is full of quackery…. dunno if he’s lying or merely drinking neoliberal koolaid.
Thank you Dean!
I cannot believe this is even a debate. We’ve been lowering taxes and deregulating for over thirty years. By Republicans promises that means we all should be rolling in wealth. Well surprise, surprise, our country is falling apart! NOT!
Enough of the BS! FDR showed us what to do. Let’s get on with it. We need to raise taxes on the rich sharply, we need a jobs program to rebuild American infrastructure, we need to reregulate Wall St, we need to bust up TBTF banks, we need to make changes strengthen SS, we need a real Medicare-for-all solution – NOT Obamacare, a massive present to the healthcare insurance industry.
Obama tried to be Clinton but ended up being Hoover because the middle class is broke and our economy is strip mining our country and selling it for a quick buck to China.
FDR is spinning like a fraking top in his grave.
I agree with Dean on this, but it sure would be nice if our fucking President wasn’t helping the other side by appointing the catfood commission, publicly focusing on the deficit as though that is what should be on his (and our) mind, and then caving in… in advance on the tax cuts for the rich. If only we had elected a Democrat as President in 2008.
I agree the FDL piece was a sales pitch of the Schakowsky plan as a better starting point for media discussion – noting that nothing to date is a “commission plan” – and noting that our media refuses to use it for discussion.
And the comments noted the places where the plan was weak.
Bo is flat out lying – and I do not care if he is lying because he is stupid, has drunk the kool-aid, or has been paid to say those things. The site should edit itself so that lies are not published except as “op-ed” where the Editorial editor concurrently puts out a comment noting the lies. Indeed that should be the rule for all media. He said/she said does not excuse known lies.
Just read title and lede intro . .
FUCK NO, no fuckin capitulation.
Right on Dean Baker.
Know there’s more but, for now?
FuckinAY hoss, rcc’d.
I keep hoping that there will be a march/protest organized to go to Washington DC. A crowd as large as the Sanity rally or larger. Sadly, this is what it is going to take to get the message across to Congress/Pres.
I’m ready to go.
I think Schakowsky is using the deficit debate to bring the discussion back to fairness and health care cost containment via single payer – at least that is how I read it.
Agreed. Also, it’s necessary to show up the deficit peacocks that you can balance the budget, even reduce the debt, just by increasing taxes sharply on the wealthy, getting us out of two wars, slashing the Pentagon budget to something *reasonable* and ending the outsourcing of Pentagon services. (I did just that on the NYTimes budget balance calculator, as tilted towards presenting only rightwing alternatives as that was). You don’t need any friggin “austerity” program.
I’m with Ian Welsh on this. The real reason driving all this “austerity” is that Western governments are still backing up insolvent banks and financial institutions to the tune of trillions of dollars. Ergo, they are being “forced” to promote austerity and to take those trillions off the backs of their middle- and lower-class citizens.
Of course, the *thing that should have been done* back in 2008 and 2009 was to let all those banks and financial institutions go under. No, watching the banksters fail would not have been the end of Western Civilization, provided that the FDIC steps in to protect small investors (as it would) then the SEC goes in to clean house. The banksters and their investors would have lost their shirts, but that would have been a *good* thing—no more spare millions lying around for them to donate to US political campaigns, no?
This, and the stock market collapse that would have accompanied it, would have presented one Barack Obama with a historic opportunity. One–the collapse would have created a multi-trillion dollar crater in the economy, true. But instead of backing up the banksters, *invest* that in our crumbling infrastructure and make it up-to-date. This would have resulted in a direct transfer of wealth from the elites down to the middle and lower classes–a good thing, no?
The second thing that needed to be done would be made necessary by the fact that the stocks of US companies would have tumbled to points where they would have feared (rightly so) of being the victims of very unfriendly buyouts by rich foreign investors (namely, Saudi and Chinese, but others). Here Obama could have waved the “National Security” flag and stopped this from happening, via the SEC. Instead, by hook or crook give the employees of these companies the option (put to a vote to the employees, not the stockholders or CEOs) to tranforming said companies from corporations to employee-owned cooperatives (their stocks being converted to bonds).
The latter, if achieved, would have transformed corporate America. As the leadership of these employee-owned companies would be elected by employees, no longer would we be treated to the spectacle of a CEO closing plants and laying off tens of thousands of workers while raking in big bucks himself. Instead, CEO salaries would tumble, while workers would likely vote for policies that a) kept US plants modernized and competitive, b) vote themselves bonuses and good raises in good times; c) vote for temporary pay cuts or shorter work weeks in bad times. Many of the ills we are witnessing now in this downturn would be greatly alleviated by employee-owned companies being the predominant large form of economic institution.
steawrtm
3 – Stop subsidizing Monsanto and the rest of the agribusiness giants. Stop subsidizing factory farming.
Though we should subsidize farming, period. Slashing agriculture subsidies are a libertarian talking point too, I should add, but like so many other libertarian talking points, wrong.
One, it’s good for the government to promote the overproduction of food. That not only insures cheap food, but also provides a buffer against catastrophic crop failures.
Two, its’ good to pay farmers to *not* to grow food, to allow land to lie fallow to recover, as to give them an incentive to practice sound conservation. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s is an example of what can happen when you let the free market rule all.
The problem with agribusiness, I suspect, is that we don’t support farmers enough and that we’ve hewed to the “truths” of the “free market” too much. Like in most other things, the advantage of economic bigness means that over time in a free market, small farmers will be priced out of the market whereas big ones survive, and the industry undergoes consolidation–just like we’ve witnessed with other businesses such as autos and oil. To counteract this, we need to spend *more* in agricultural support rather than less.
stewartm, and I am not a farmer, to make that clear.
We need to raise taxes on the rich sharply, we need a jobs program to rebuild American infrastructure
Agreed, but why stop there? Why not a permanent WPA? Why not the ideal of a permanent full-employment economy?
My dream would be–if you’re jobless, you go down to the local WPA office and they put you to work. If you posses skills or education, they find you work employing those skills and pay you at medium pay for that profession (you may have to temporarily be moved to the job site, living in an efficiency apartment or in a trailer, but you could still make your home payments or whatnot).
A permanent WPA would ensure that America is always investing in its infrastructure. A permanent WPA could effectively set and enforce minimum wage laws and effectively force employers to provide vacation (say, if the WPA provided everyone with a European-style 5 weeks, then all employers would be forced to follow suit). A WPA would prevent wage theft and other employee abuses that currently go unchecked. A permanent WPA would act just like the proposed “public option” in health care reform–by providing a high-quality market alternative for labor provided by the state, you keep all the other employers honest.
So let’s not just re-enact FDR. Let’s go a step beyond FDR to ensure that this crap never occurs again. A permanent WPA, like SS or Medicare-for-all, would be so popular that it would easily become a “Third Rail” all by itself. Moreover, it would be better economically justified and easier to defend that public relief and welfare policies, as the recipients would actually be *working* for their money.
stewartm
Permanent WPA: wonderful idea.
“No one on the Commission, including Schakowsky, appears to realize that there is no deficit problem. All of them assume there is a problem and bloviate concerning how to solve it.”
Deficit mongering today is functionally equivalent to the WMD mongering during the lead-in to the Iraq invasion and occupation. Both provide political cover to elite policy preferences which are economically and politically irrational as well as morally reprehensible when considered on their individual merits.
The left position on the deficit ought to be: Increase the deficit for the short-term in order to create jobs, reindustrialize while also greening the economy.
Elite preferences in these matters are made manifest in their reticence to tackle the employment crisis and, of course, their unwillingness to compensate the unemployed for being unemployed. The elite appear willing to accept the creation of a low-growth, high-unemployment, finance-dominated economy. One likely consequence of that kind of economy? The appearance of a large mass of superfluous individuals — that is, individuals without jobs and will little to no hope. This is the neoliberal ‘utopia.’
That Social Security is fine and has nothing to do with the deficit is explained nicely in an article I copied from The Huffington Post. I don’t recall the writer’s name and I apologize for not copying that, too. I wanted to save it to forward to those who are mistakenly up-in-arms about SS as a drag on the deficit. See below:
The PowerPoint released by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (“The Deficit Commission”), said we should “Reform Social Security for its own sake, not for deficit reduction.”
No kidding. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Not now, not ever.
Critics of Social Security have frequently made alarming claims about the future of the system to support calls for “reform.” President George W. Bush conceded in 2005 that “it’s not bankrupt yet,” but said we couldn’t “wait until it’s bankrupt.” “The problem with that notion is that the longer you wait, the more difficult it is to fix,” President Bush said. “You realize that this system of ours is going to be short the difference between obligations and money coming in, by about $11 trillion, unless we act… That’s trillion with a ‘T.’”
That does sound scary.
So what was the period for that projected shortfall? It was for the “indefinite future.”
Forecasts of the end times are usually the work of religious prophets, not economists or actuaries. According to the Book of Revelation, at the end of days earthquakes will level mountains, hail will fall mixed with fire, and a beast with seven heads and ten horns will arise from the seas.
In that context, a shortfall in the Social Security system just doesn’t seem like that big a deal.
At least President Bush used the term “projected shortfall,” but Republican talking heads sent forth to battle on cable television routinely used the word “deficit,” implying that we’d have to pick up the difference.
No, we wouldn’t. Here’s how it would work if we just left the current law alone.
The system has been running a substantial surplus for a generation because the Baby Boom has been working and paying payroll taxes, and the Baby Boom dwarfs the generation now receiving benefits. The surplus has gone into the Trust Fund, which now stands at about $2.6 trillion (That’s trillion with a “T.”) As the Baby Boom retires, the system will stop running a surplus later this decade. Then the system will pay full benefits, including cost-of-living adjustments, from payroll taxes and the interest from the Trust Fund. About a decade after that, payroll taxes and interest on the Trust Fund will not be enough to pay full benefits, including cost of living adjustments. Then the system will pay full benefits, including cost of living adjustments, from payroll taxes, interest and the principal of the Trust Fund.
Around 2037, the principal of the Trust Fund will be exhausted. Under the existing law, the system will then reduce the benefits to what can be covered by payroll taxes. The projection is that the benefits would then be reduced by about 22 percent.
A 22-percent reduction in benefits is pretty unattractive, especially if the finances of the middle class are as fragile in 30 years as they are now. But proposals to “fix” Social Security by reducing benefits would really just swap one reduction of benefits for another.
Paul Krugman argues that raising the retirement age is a reduction of benefits that works to the disadvantage of blue-collar workers:
[W]hile average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers are living to a ripe old age.
Would blue-collar workers be better off if we raised the retirement age or let an across-the-board cut in benefits go into effect in 30 years or so? Isn’t that a question we should ask?
More to the point, Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. “Since Social Security is legally prohibited from ever spending more than it has collected in taxes,” Dean Baker correctly argues, “it cannot under the law contribute to the deficit.”
The Social Security system “fell outside of the mandate” of the Deficit Commission, Baker said. “They must have been expecting extra credit.”
We are right to worry about Social Security, and we are right to worry about our long-term deficit. But the two are completely distinct.
So proposing to “reform” Social Security because of long-term deficits is like invading Iraq because Afghanistan attacked us.
Or maybe the Social Security system has weapons of mass destruction.
One year less in Afghanistan and we can pay for Social Security for a 100 years.
Less spending on wasted “Military Complex” that can’t even stop attacks on 9/11.
Let the same people who use our roads, police, firefighters, teachers, parks, airports, garbage and recycle pickup pay their fair share of taxes.
Let the same corporations with off shore accounts also pay for roads, police, firefighters, teachers, parks, airports, garbage and recycle pickup pay their share or taxes.
During the FDR years and after the TR years, the fat cats paid 90%, now they pay 0%-15%, while you and I pay 28-35%.