Presidential Pressblogging
---
I have a few hasty stitches about the President's comments regarding Social Security reform:
--He said Social Security has been a "success for past generations." That is not correct.
--He said that Social Security will go "bankrupt" in 2041. Whoever in his Administration is pushing him to use the "b-word" should be fired. Not only is it not correct, it also plays right into the hands of the obfuscaters like Paul Krugman and the AARP. What better way to accuse the President of "scaremongering" that by using his own over-the-top terminology? Very bad strategy.
--Another misstep: To ease fears about investing in the stock market, he "recommended" that a bond fund option be included. Huh? Bond funds can lose money too. Expect the obfuscaters to pick up on that. Why not nip it in the bud and emphasize that there would be a cash option (actually a money market most likely) that would be truly risk-free? The ignoranti may not understand interest rate risk, reinvestment risk, call risk or any of the other varieties of bond risk, but they do understand "bank account." Very bad strategy. (He made the same mistake in the Q&A too.)
--He said that the benefit schedule would be changed such that poor workers get more benefits for their taxes than "the well off." Um, we already have that. It's called "progressive redistribution." Someone who pays twice as much Social Security taxes gets far less than twice as much in benefits (and pays taxes on those benefits to boot). Is the Administration proposing making the system even more progressive? More details please...
--Unlike the past confusion generated partially by the President but more by his staff, he unequivocally said no increase in Social Security tax rates. Translation: Kiss the wage cap goodbye. Very bad mistake.
--On the other hand, he also said, unequivocally, that private accounts could be left "to whomever he or she chooses." So hopefully the fears that the Republicans will somehow find a way to prevent gays from bequeathing their accounts to their partners will be allayed. Will the Administration speak of it openly? Stay tuned. (Recall that the quite lucrative spousal benefit under Social Security is denied gays, even Massachusetts-married gays, under federal DOMA, so inheritability of private accounts is mission-critical to gay empowerment.)
Net-net: Not the best performance; hopefully his staff can spin and backpedal and spackle where necessary. Still, bravo to the President for staying the course.
--He said Social Security has been a "success for past generations." That is not correct.
--He said that Social Security will go "bankrupt" in 2041. Whoever in his Administration is pushing him to use the "b-word" should be fired. Not only is it not correct, it also plays right into the hands of the obfuscaters like Paul Krugman and the AARP. What better way to accuse the President of "scaremongering" that by using his own over-the-top terminology? Very bad strategy.
--Another misstep: To ease fears about investing in the stock market, he "recommended" that a bond fund option be included. Huh? Bond funds can lose money too. Expect the obfuscaters to pick up on that. Why not nip it in the bud and emphasize that there would be a cash option (actually a money market most likely) that would be truly risk-free? The ignoranti may not understand interest rate risk, reinvestment risk, call risk or any of the other varieties of bond risk, but they do understand "bank account." Very bad strategy. (He made the same mistake in the Q&A too.)
--He said that the benefit schedule would be changed such that poor workers get more benefits for their taxes than "the well off." Um, we already have that. It's called "progressive redistribution." Someone who pays twice as much Social Security taxes gets far less than twice as much in benefits (and pays taxes on those benefits to boot). Is the Administration proposing making the system even more progressive? More details please...
--Unlike the past confusion generated partially by the President but more by his staff, he unequivocally said no increase in Social Security tax rates. Translation: Kiss the wage cap goodbye. Very bad mistake.
--On the other hand, he also said, unequivocally, that private accounts could be left "to whomever he or she chooses." So hopefully the fears that the Republicans will somehow find a way to prevent gays from bequeathing their accounts to their partners will be allayed. Will the Administration speak of it openly? Stay tuned. (Recall that the quite lucrative spousal benefit under Social Security is denied gays, even Massachusetts-married gays, under federal DOMA, so inheritability of private accounts is mission-critical to gay empowerment.)
Net-net: Not the best performance; hopefully his staff can spin and backpedal and spackle where necessary. Still, bravo to the President for staying the course.
Posted by KipEsquire on
28 April 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
