WP: Conservative Intellectuals Splitting on Social Security

[kskiska]

President Bush's proposal to add private investment accounts to Social Security is beginning to create controversy within the one group that has most forcefully embraced the idea in theory: the conservative intelligentsia.

Under Bush's approach, personal accounts "are complicated," wrote Alex J. Pollock, a finance expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in a paper he will present at AEI today. "To many people, they are downright confusing and even frightening, and they require diverting a portion of payroll taxes away from the U.S. Treasury."

Conservative Harvard University economist Robert J. Barro broke with the White House in the April 4 issue of Business Week, writing, "Overall the accounts are a bad idea." Tyler Cowen, a free-market economist at George Mason University, has linked his Web log, Marginal Revolution, to Barro's dissent, declaring, "Robert Barro agrees with me on Social Security."

(snip)

"For different reasons, I think support is waning," said Barro, who for years had embraced private accounts.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8000-2005Mar28.html

[deadparrot]

1. Whoa...

there are still people active in the Republican party who have the title "the conservative intelligentsia"??

[XemaSab]

17. Well, there's Bill Safire, and uh,

William Safire. And then there's that dude who writes the language column for the New York Times, uh.... named something like Satire? Sagire? Something like that.... so there's three conservatives right there. Is three enough to constitute an intellegentsia?

[VegasWolf]

20. Don't forget Ann Coulter, she can make her X signature. n/t

[Mr_Spock]

2. Does that title have "conservative" next to the word "intellectuals"?

You need to edit your post in order to fix that mistake :D

[Daphne08]

4. It's called an oxymoron.

;)

[Mr_Spock]

6. Yeah, or a MORON wasting OXYgen.

Good for nothings. :D

[Poiuyt]

7. oxymoran

[Mr_Spock]

11. HAHAH!!! Good one!

I'll have to remember that one :D

[UrbScotty]

13. 'Conservative intellectual' = Oxymoron. GW Bush - Total moron. (nt)

[TahitiNut]

19. No. It's called an "oxymoran".

:eyes:

[malclave]

27. Oxymoran?

Isn't that what Joannie used on Happy Days when she got a pimple?

[merwin]

5. Yes, I think it is an oxymoron

[obxhead]

3. we need the repub names to e-mail...

so we can help them in their Flip-Flop

[Triana]

8. conservative intellectuals?

...isn't that the oxymoron of the decade?

Conservatives hate intellectualism. They consider intellectuals elitist pinkos. Surely there are NO conservative INTELLECTUALS!

*GASP!* That would be disgusting to 'the base' wouldn't it?

[Triana]

9. Spitting on social security?

:evilgrin:

[bluestateguy]

10. We're going to win this thing, but don't get complacent

We have them in full retreat here. This could be like health care was for the Clintons in 1994. The fundy wackos feel let down by the Schiavo case and if privatization is defeated the economic conservatives will feel demoralized for the 2006 elections.

There's still a ways to go, and Democratic complacency could still turn victory into defeat. So keep on fighting!

[sandnsea]

12. "If the White House doesn't have a plan soon,"

Hassett said, "it's very unlikely the White House will win."

Whatever we do, we can't take their bait in presenting a Democratic plan. Then they'll just make up things about the plan, slander, blur the issues, lie and all the rest. As long as there is nothing for the Republicans to attack, their privatization plan remains the focus.

[ClintonTyree]

15. Hey, they own the government.................

why should it up to Democrats to bail his ass out? Let him do his own thinking. Oh shit, I just realized what I said. bush, do his OWN thinking? :rofl: Like THAT will ever happen!

[ClintonTyree]

14. Besides the obvious contradiction of terms......................

it's nice to see that some of the former Kool-Aid drinkers have decided to kick the habit. If we can reach thinking conservatives on this subject, perhaps we can persuade them into re-thinking other important matters that bush has been ramming down the throats of Americans.
Hey, I know it's a long shot. There's only so much "thinking" these conservatives can do without having their heads explode, but it's a start. :party:

[Plaid Adder]

16. Hey, they made like a banana and split!

Now if only they would make like a tree and LEAVE!

The Plaid Adder

[Voltaire]

22. Make like sheep

and get the flock out of here

[warrens]

18. That was a pretty good read

What the intellectuals miss is that Smirk has no intention of fixing or improving SS. He is laying the groundwork to destroy it.

[VegasWolf]

21. All Bush has to do is put it up for a public diebold and then they will

win.

[clydefrand]

23. Conservative intelligentsia??????????? No way! Can't use

those two words together. That's like saying a no-no. Like ain't no such thing as a smart republican.

[struggle4progress]

24. I'd chortle and snicker but ...

... these SOBs are dead set and determined to ruin Social Security -- and they're busily looking for an alternate attack ...

[AirAmFan]

25. This is a serious issue, presenting long-awaited political opportunities for

Democrats, and involving intricate and little-known economic and political details.

But it seems to be mainly getting blown off as a joke here. For a more serious look at the emerging GOP split over Social Security politics, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1686140 .

[UL_Approved]

31. This is a link to a good site on how the SS deal ties in with all other BS

I found this one day surfing the net, and I'm sure I am the last to know, but for the uninitiated, here you go:

TruthStream.Org - Streaming the TRUTH to the American People

[ExclamationPoint]

26. There is a difference between intellectual...

and ignorant. They understand social security no doubt, but they seem not to have the compassion (or the knowledge that people are suffering) to help those people who are affected the most by it.

[AirAmFan]

29. Compassion is NOT their strong suit, and, for at least some of them, neither

is intellectual honesty.

For far-right intellectuals like Alan Greenspan, the very notion of social insurance to provide a safety net for those too old to work always has been anathema. They were raised on social Darwinism and Ayn Rand's "virtue of selfishness". They know all about poverty, but could not care less.

It's amusing that the article mentions Martin Feldstein as one of the holdouts for privatization. 25 years ago, he was accused of submitting made-up empirical results to support the notion that Social Security hurt national savings. When other researchers could not replicate his results, he famously blamed "computer error"! See Karen W. Arenson, �Martin Feldstein�s Computer Error,Ž New York Times (October 5, 1980, Section III), p. 19.

[mistertrickster]

28. Like rats abandoning the sinking ship--Bush Co are going down

and the smarter ones don't want to sink with it.

[Liberty Belle]

30. "conservative intellectual" is an oxymoron, isn't it?

[entanglement]

32. Conservative intelligentsia?

What kind of animal is that?

[StainlessSteelUrsus]

33. I already have a private account.

My private account is an IRA. It contains my money. I suggest everyone who works for a living begin investing some money now. Don't wait for some pathetic bipartisan compromise that will throw good money after bad. Social Security and Medicare will crash and burn. It is much better in the long run for young Americans to accept the inevitable collapse of a system incapable of perpetual wage transfer. The time to reform the system has passed. It is now time to plan for a future without universal Social Security. The Democratic Party should oppose Bush's plan to increase the size of the federal bureaucracy, budget and debt. Instead, it should advocate lowering the payroll tax rate and letting workers keep more of their hard earned wages, and educate the people that they need to take responsibility for their longevity. If there is an excellent chance you will live a long life, you need to set aside some money for the time you do not earn a wage. If you deplete your savings and are unable to work, you will have to rely on welfare. Taxing young burger flippers and giving the money to wealthy, healthy senior citizens is not right. If those same wealthy, healthy senior citizens paid taxes for years thinking that the SS Ponzi scheme would be there for them, it is still not right.

Republican infighting presents a great opportunity for Democrats to start proposing bold plans and stop being stuck in the 1930's or the 1960's. FDR even expected Social Security to be privatized. From MESSAGE TO CONGRESS ON SOCIAL SECURITY. JANUARY 17,1935.:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

It seems FDR was decades ahead of Bush in the privatization talk. Too bad the current Democratic leadership has forsaken the wisdom of FDR. The bold Democratic plans to replace Social Security should have been on the front burner at least twenty five years ago. The Democrats in Congress have a lot of catching up to do in a short amount of time.

[zipplewrath]

34. You're being a bit dishonest here

FDR was predicting exactly what has happened. Extensively now we have private pension plans, IRA's, and 401K's. Government isn't funding the vast majority of the retirement income. What is currently being proposed is the REINTRODUCTION of government into the private retirement savings accounts of individuals. If we need additional action on the part of government in retirement, it is in ensuring that these private accounts, that already exist, are protected from their keepers. No more Enrons, none of this bit of threatening employees with losing their retirement through bankruptcy if they don't concede to wage and benefit cuts, and above all we need to stabilize the most significant retirement issue facing us in the next 10 years, health care. FDR wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with SS, he was suggesting it was the beginning. We have moved on, and many of us do save for our own retirement. But that is no reason for dumping the safety net that protects the least of us, to enrich the least needy of us.

[StainlessSteelUrsus]

37. You misunderstood me.

SS is not a safety net. It is an income redistribution scheme. It takes money from low wage workers and gives it to wealthy people who have lived long. I have no problem with government maintaining a safety net. I have a problem with a program that takes from the least and gives to the least needy.

I think FDR was saying that Social Security could not last forever due to demographic changes that were becoming apparent in the late 30's. More people are living longer and SS in its present form can't cope with the dwindling worker to retiree ratio. The solution is to only give to the needy.

[zipplewrath]

40. SS is alot of things

SS is an insurance program for medical disability, it is a survival benefit for spouses, it is a subsistence level income for the unfortunate.

Folks wanna do "means testing" and we can incorporate those aspects, although I strongly suspect this isn't particularly necessary. More likely would be to tie cost of living increases to recipients TOTAL income. We could also tie the maximum salary that is taxed to cost of living adjustments. But SS will always need to be here, and is useful in maintaining our countries stable economy. As someone mentioned this month, one of the reasons FDR created the program was to get folks spending money. If we flood the job market with elderly needing to replace SS income, we'll have a employment problem too.

[snippy]

35. When did FDR ever advocate privatizing Social security? n/t

[StainlessSteelUrsus]

38. FDR mentioned privatization as early as 1935

[snippy]

39. Do you have a source for that claim? n/t

[oxbow]

36. As the GOP fractures, we have a unique opportunity

This has been a momentous few weeks. The Wall-street journal, a bastion of conservative editorialism, has published a scathing critique of Bush and the neo-cons' actions re: social security. In nebraska, one of the media darlings of conservative thought has announced he will be supporting independents from now on. The public stands united against the neo-cons on Terri Schiavo's case. Even CNN is running a story on the breakup of the GOP voting bloc today! All across the country, moderate conservatives are discovering that these aren't the people that they voted for, but radicals with an agenda all their own.

Most of these people don't feel like their values are being represented by the democrats, either, so they will be looking for another way. We have an opportunity to bring to the forefront the issue of voting reform at this time. Instant run off voting, or approval voting, offers a way for candidates outside of the GOP and DNC to run against these behemoths, without people feeling like they will be wasting their vote by voting for them. This is the most important thing we can do to break the two-party stranglehold on american politics, and the time is right for action.

Please write a letter to the editor of a conservative paper this week, talking about the benefits of instant run-off voting, and how it can provide a solution to the rut that american politics is in. It will only take one or two high profile media outlets to bring this issue to a fore. We have a unique opportunity at this point in time, and we must take advantage of it.

Go here for more info on approval voting, etc:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/12/13248/089
http://www.approvalvoting.com /
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/idol.html?pg=3