Comments on: Is Bush Cutting Social Security?

By: PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » The Deion Sanders Effect

PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » The Deion Sanders Effect — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:07:26 +0000

[...] Beyond personalities, I would point to the recent response to a suggestion President Bush made at his most recent prime time press conference, wherein he suggested that Social Security benefits might have to be indexed to income in the future to deal with the explosion in the number of beneficiaries. The suggestion was defended immediately by many Republicans and denounced by many Democrats, yet James Joyner was quite correct when he noted at the time: Of course, if Bill Clinton had made this proposal, conservatives would almost surely be crying “Socialism!” [...]

By: Sallie aka The Sage

Sallie aka The Sage — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:51:09 +0000

Social Security, passed during the time of the depression, was meant to keep elders from becoming destitute. We forget that the earliest collectors of SS had never even paid into it. That is not to mention that as we live longer we collect more than we pay in, thus making it a safety net program as we speak.

Today, many high income seniors end up paying most of their SS back to the government in the form of taxes.

I should think the public, after some consideration, would embrace the thought that their payments into SS will guarantee that they will never fall into severe poverty due to a minimum amount that would be possible to receive. Given the unfortunate ups and downs in life that one can't predict this should be a major plus.

Currently there are some people near retirement who are putting together a financial package for their future income that greatly exceeds an average family's current income. That's great for them. They have had the opportunity to do well without the interference of any major catastrophy. Not necessarily real life!

There are many others who because of lack of job security, or in order to stay home to care for elders, those who have lost most of their assets in divorce, had business reversals, or a medical crisis, or been forced into early unpaid retirement, or can only find low paying or part-time work for all or a portion of their working lives, or had relied on a pension that no longer exists, may expect nothing more than $200-$300 a month in SS upon which to live. A far cry from those who are able to actuality provide 80% of their pre-retirement income for their remaining years.

This plan is realistic, and whoever thinks that they couldn't fall into this later unfortunate category at a moment's notice should receive a wakeup call from life.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:51:20 +0000

I think social security will survive because a critical mass of younger Americans likes not feeling personally responsible for the complete financial care of their parents.

By: Scott Dillard

Scott Dillard — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:40:42 +0000

I agree. I don't think most Americans really object to helping out the elderly poor. They are too old to work, have no time to save, and need help with basic expenses. If Bush can sell that, he may win this. My folks are affluent retirees, and they tell me a small decrease in their benefits would not be a killer for them. But they do live in Arkansas, where they see a lot of poor old people living on $500 a month.

By: QandO

QandO — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:22:54 +0000

So it's welfare, then
Weird. For four years, the Left has been complaining that the Bush Administration was 1) letting the deficit spiral out of control, and 2) constructing every policy to make the rich

By: Accidental Verbosity

Accidental Verbosity — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:21:00 +0000

Retirement Welfare
Apparently, I wasn't the only one who was struggling to figure out what exactly Mr. Bush was proposing for Social Security last night. Sounded to me like was proposing a shift back to the thing being a welfare program, while at the same time tryin...

By: praktike

praktike — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:56:20 +0000

Here are the numbers, for your edification.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:10:46 +0000

Fair point. And, I admit, I'm not particularly opposed to welfare for the elderly poor. If anyone should sup at the public trought, it's the elderly and those who genuinely can't support themselves.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:04:52 +0000

Max and Atrios are up in arms over the switch to welfare, on the theory that once you label something "welfare" it's easier to attack and eliminate. I don't think their practical political worries are well-founded, though. A lot of the perverse incentives that bedevil welfare for working-age people don't apply to welfare for seniors. Just at the most obvious level, it ain't going to encourage a culture of unwed juvenile motherhood. Plus, welfare politics is beset by In-Group/Other issues that wouldn't apply so strongly. Everyone expects to be old someday.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:50:34 +0000

In this case, I'd say most Americans who are lumped into that category--whether social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, or the libertarian right--would find the idea of taxing the rich more while giving them less benefits to be objectionable. And, to some extent, this simply is socialistic.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:45:12 +0000

Of course, if Bill Clinton had made this proposal, conservatives would almost surely be crying "Socialism!" James, please define "conservatives" as you're using it here.