Conservatives Admit Privatization Will Only Hurt Social Security
Finally, some brave Republicans are speaking out against President Bush's disastrous plan for privatization of Social Security.
If this remarkable trend continues, we could see a complete unraveling of this corporate administration's proposal, as it would especially undermine House Republicans politically in their home districts.
Rep. James McCrery (R-LA), chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, admitted yesterday that diverting money from the Social Security trust fund into private accounts will undermine the program. "That is true on its face. It does decrease the level of the fund," he stated.
McCrery's statements come on top of those by an "anonymous" senior White House official who candidly admitted that the president's privatization scheme "would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems," according to the LA Times.
McCrery is certainly not the only Republican to speak out. Numerous Republican leaders, including Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), have all raised pointed questions about Bush's proposal.
While it is not common to cheer Republicans in office, it is with great admiration that I applaud the efforts of these Congressional leaders in their efforts to rightly oppose Bush's horrific policy.
In addition, there is also speculation that the so-called "Sisters of Maine" - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) - and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) may soon be putting in their two cents of opposition.
Although the Republicans are the standard bearers of the corporate elite and their policies and may philsophically support the privatization of Social Security, Republicans would likely face a backlash in the next election cycle if they were to enthusiastically support Bush's proposal.
Yes, that is one of the brilliant safeguards of democracy, the ultimate authority of the people. And since young people, the main supporters of privatization, often don't vote, popular pressures could well force the Republicans to back down on Social Security altogether. Hmm...wouldn't that be nice!
An editorial from The New Republic provides progressives with some excellent talking points for persuading those feisty conservatives:
If this remarkable trend continues, we could see a complete unraveling of this corporate administration's proposal, as it would especially undermine House Republicans politically in their home districts.
Rep. James McCrery (R-LA), chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, admitted yesterday that diverting money from the Social Security trust fund into private accounts will undermine the program. "That is true on its face. It does decrease the level of the fund," he stated.
McCrery's statements come on top of those by an "anonymous" senior White House official who candidly admitted that the president's privatization scheme "would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems," according to the LA Times.
McCrery is certainly not the only Republican to speak out. Numerous Republican leaders, including Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), have all raised pointed questions about Bush's proposal.
While it is not common to cheer Republicans in office, it is with great admiration that I applaud the efforts of these Congressional leaders in their efforts to rightly oppose Bush's horrific policy.
In addition, there is also speculation that the so-called "Sisters of Maine" - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) - and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) may soon be putting in their two cents of opposition.
Although the Republicans are the standard bearers of the corporate elite and their policies and may philsophically support the privatization of Social Security, Republicans would likely face a backlash in the next election cycle if they were to enthusiastically support Bush's proposal.
Yes, that is one of the brilliant safeguards of democracy, the ultimate authority of the people. And since young people, the main supporters of privatization, often don't vote, popular pressures could well force the Republicans to back down on Social Security altogether. Hmm...wouldn't that be nice!
An editorial from The New Republic provides progressives with some excellent talking points for persuading those feisty conservatives:
This isn't a plan to save Social Security; it's a plan to replace Social Security. By definition, the president's plan for private accounts entails the undermining of the system. Shifting money out of the trust fund to pay for private accounts, while borrowing trillions of dollars to pay promised benefits, does nothing to ensure solvency and will accelerate the program's financial strains. Privatization does nothing to "save and strengthen Social Security."
The president's assumption of high rates of return for private accounts assumes overall economic growth sufficient to keep Social Security solvent for decades.
As Paul Krugman rightly points out, the estimates on the rate of returns pushed by the president assume a rate of growth in the economy that would "yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come… [A]ny growth projection that would permit the stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social Security solidly in the black."
Younger workers will lose more than they gain under privatization. Younger workers beware – any potential increases in private savings will be more than offset by the higher taxes you will certainly have to pay to cover Bush's $2 trillion borrowing to fund his privatization plan.
