The Jokers on the New Deal
This article in the Times is a good look at one ideological dimension of the debate over Social Security privatization: conservatives' assault on the New Deal edifice constructed by FDR and improved by many since then. The article includes some intriguing and illuminating quotes by conservatives on the privatization plot.
From the ex-Club for Growth president, Stephen Moore, we have this: "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state... If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state." Uh, sure. Stephen Moore, spearchucker. This sort of aggressive, faux-martial rhetoric sounds silly coming from someone whose group has just one idea that's been around since the first villein tried to get out from under his lord's levies. At least it doesn't suggest infanticide like Grover Norquist's infamous "drown it in the bathtub" line.
Then there's this beauty from Newt Gingrich: "'If you frame the private Social Security accounts as giving your children the right to choose, as opposed to cutting benefits or forcing anyone to do anything, I think it's a total winner for us... The accounts will create the first 100 percent capitalist society in history. Fifty years from now, relatively poor Americans for the first time will have their own personal savings; they'll see the power of interest buildup over time and appreciate the importance of property.'"
I know Gingrich is supposed to be quite knowledgeable about history, but this is at least triply idiotic. First, individual savings do not equal capitalism, or even form a necessary part of a capitalist economy. And the current SS system functions in such a way that "relatively poor Americans" already have savings, in a way - the income that's taxed into the SS system. Second, the U.S. in the 1880s and 1890s was a much more capitalistic country than it is now. Third, poor Americans certainly already do "appreciate the importance of property" (isn't that an Ayn Rand essay?); it's that they are unable to actually aquire property - a far different matter. And the SS scheme won't necessarily help them there, anyhow, because the savings they accumulate and invest might well evaporate when some young-gun investment manager errs and overcommits his fund to some declining stock. Where's the property now, Newt?
But I don't want to let facts get in the way of Gingrich's story, because he's really just telling the usual conservative fairy tale about liberty and competition. The "choice" he's describing is nothing of the kind. Everything I've read on the conservatives' plans for SS indicates that a citizen could not opt out of the private accounts plan any more a citizen can opt out of the payroll tax now. Nor, of course, could a citizen say, "thanks but no thanks" and choose to remain in the current SS system. Rather, it's still politicians and bureaucrats who get to make the choices (albeit steered by interest groups) and citizens who get to abide by them. And under the privatization scheme, the government bureaucrats would be joined by scores of mutual-fund managers. An immense improvement, I'm sure. There hasn't been a scandal in the mutual-fund industry in, what, months now?
From the ex-Club for Growth president, Stephen Moore, we have this: "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state... If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state." Uh, sure. Stephen Moore, spearchucker. This sort of aggressive, faux-martial rhetoric sounds silly coming from someone whose group has just one idea that's been around since the first villein tried to get out from under his lord's levies. At least it doesn't suggest infanticide like Grover Norquist's infamous "drown it in the bathtub" line.
Then there's this beauty from Newt Gingrich: "'If you frame the private Social Security accounts as giving your children the right to choose, as opposed to cutting benefits or forcing anyone to do anything, I think it's a total winner for us... The accounts will create the first 100 percent capitalist society in history. Fifty years from now, relatively poor Americans for the first time will have their own personal savings; they'll see the power of interest buildup over time and appreciate the importance of property.'"
I know Gingrich is supposed to be quite knowledgeable about history, but this is at least triply idiotic. First, individual savings do not equal capitalism, or even form a necessary part of a capitalist economy. And the current SS system functions in such a way that "relatively poor Americans" already have savings, in a way - the income that's taxed into the SS system. Second, the U.S. in the 1880s and 1890s was a much more capitalistic country than it is now. Third, poor Americans certainly already do "appreciate the importance of property" (isn't that an Ayn Rand essay?); it's that they are unable to actually aquire property - a far different matter. And the SS scheme won't necessarily help them there, anyhow, because the savings they accumulate and invest might well evaporate when some young-gun investment manager errs and overcommits his fund to some declining stock. Where's the property now, Newt?
But I don't want to let facts get in the way of Gingrich's story, because he's really just telling the usual conservative fairy tale about liberty and competition. The "choice" he's describing is nothing of the kind. Everything I've read on the conservatives' plans for SS indicates that a citizen could not opt out of the private accounts plan any more a citizen can opt out of the payroll tax now. Nor, of course, could a citizen say, "thanks but no thanks" and choose to remain in the current SS system. Rather, it's still politicians and bureaucrats who get to make the choices (albeit steered by interest groups) and citizens who get to abide by them. And under the privatization scheme, the government bureaucrats would be joined by scores of mutual-fund managers. An immense improvement, I'm sure. There hasn't been a scandal in the mutual-fund industry in, what, months now?
posted by Christopher Tassava at Tuesday, January 25, 2005
1 Comments:
I totally agree with you, as should all right-thinking people, but: does anyone else think it's a wee tad creepy how everyone has started abbreviating Social Security "SS?" All this talk about the SS system and SS plans is making me want to check my arm for a numbered tatoo. Just sayin'.
Post a Comment
<< Home