The New Yorker on Bush's planned "Ownership Society"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://newyorker.com/printable/?talk/041115ta_talk_surowiecki

George W. Bush was reëlected last Tuesday not because of the job he did running the economy in his first term but in spite of it. (Voters for whom the economy was the most important issue voted for Kerry by a four-to-one margin.) Bush doesn’t get to coast for the next four years, though; he’s facing a host of economic problems, particularly the mounting cost of health care and the looming crisis in funding for Social Security and Medicare. Bush, of course, has a master plan: he intends to turn America into what he calls an ownership society.

That sounds unobjectionable—who’s against ownership? But what the President has in mind is nothing less than a radical overhaul of America’s entire system of social insurance. In place of unwieldy government programs run by busybody bureaucrats, Bush wants Americans to have more independence and more choices regarding their health care, their savings, and their retirement. Social Security would be partially privatized, with people allowed to put aside money in individual accounts. Private health-insurance plans would compete with Medicare. Tax-free retirement accounts would be expanded. And health savings accounts would let people save money for health-care expenses tax-free, as long as they agreed to sign up for plans with high deductibles. The result, Bush claimed earlier this year, would be “greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own life.” And with freedom, presumably, will come greater responsibility; people will be more careful as users of health care, more diligent as savers and investors.

The ownership society promises freedom, but at the price of a huge shift in risk, away from government and society and onto individual citizens. Social Security, Medicare, insurance—these are basically collective risk-sharing mechanisms. Rather than let each person run the risk of ending up destitute or sick, these programs pool the risk. Because the risk is shared, it can be managed, and people can be guaranteed a minimally acceptable outcome. In Bush’s brave new world, that guarantee will be eliminated.

The ownership society’s greatest flaw, however, is that it won’t solve the problems it purports to address. A real solution would require facing up to some thorny issues—raising the retirement age, slowing the growth of benefits, means-testing. By advocating greater freedom and independence, while failing to explain or account for the greater risk, Bush is setting Americans up for an unpleasant surprise. If his plans are implemented, a lot of people are going to end up a lot poorer in their old age than they otherwise would have been. (A lot of people will end up a lot richer, too.) The result would be Social Security without the security part. Freedom of choice is a beautiful thing. But the Bush plan is asking you to swap an insurance policy for a lottery ticket.

[hangloose]

1. Couldn't agree more

[aquart]

2. Their language says they're still attracted to the idea. Idiots.

[acmavm]

3. And bush* holds the winning ticket in that particular lottery. He gets to

loot, pillage, and plunder because he has this fake 'mandate'.

[kostya]

4. The core Repub argument for privatizing SS is along the

lines that SS only has a miniscule ROI (return on investment) compared to even the safest investments such as U.S. Bonds (well, they used to be safe). This is a blanket statement, of course, and as we know the benefits of SS compared to investment are uneven across the population depending on how much you put in and how long you get to take it out (if at all). But, can someone point us to a good web site that explains the ROI in factual terms instead of a sweep of the hand that says of course government could not be as efficient as individuals? 'ppreciate it! - K

:bounce:

[sandnsea]

10. Disability & Survivor's Benefits

Nobody wants to remember that's a huge part of social security.

Right of Redress. Nobody wants to confront the fact that once you give your money to corporations AND reduce your right to recover damages with "tort reform"; you've got NOTHING if they screw you over in the end.

[Cleita]

5. This is the Newt Gingrich plan to shoot holes in

Medicare and Social Security making both entitlements ineffective. There is nothing in this that is socially helpful to those who benefit from the programs, the elderly.

It just sounds good to those that can't see what's wrong with it. The framers eliminate these programs by making it sound like they are making them better.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Come on

I know human nature. One of my coworkers only wanted to know if he'd get to keep the Social Security taxes instead of paying them. There's no way he'll put that extra money into a retirement account. He can barely pay his bills as it is. And I can't help but remember what the Enron guys said when they laughed about the little old grannies having to choose between eating and electricity. That's where we're headed with this snake oil proposal of Shrub.

[BayCityProgressive]

7. SOUNDS LIKE A SATANIC VERSION OF "THE GREAT SOCIETY"

These people are nuts. The Democrats have abandoned us Liberals and it now sounds like Bush will be able to push through the first massive conservative agenda since before the New Deal. In the 60's REAL DEMOCRATS, REAL LIBERALS created medicare, medicaid, headstart, affirmative action, civil rights, public television, college aid, community hospitals, funded the arts ect.

This "Ownership Society" will undue whatever is left of ALL of these programs. You do have to give the GOP some credit. At least they have the balls to push big ideas and agendas. The Democrats have NOTHING.

[Union Thug]

8. Ownership society == Gilded Age

It's all code

[LSparkle]

12. Yeah, the "ownership" he's talking about is stocks

Even Grover (let's neuter all Dems) Norquist has admitted that their aim is to get EVERYONE invested in the stock market. This is corporatization, aided by government = FASCISM.

[sandnsea]

9. Plantation Society

Where we put all our money into American Corporations so they can exploit the rest of the world. And when they fly airplanes into our buildings, we'll have to ask ourselves, do we want to keep our "slaves" and kill a few in order to keep our little "ownership society"; or do we want to look ourselves in the mirror and face what we've become. I'm not betting on the outcome of that one. Very few have taken me up on the idea of pulling their investments to send a clear message to corporate crony capitalism and media control.

This is the most disgusting "plan" the right has ever come up with.

[LauraT28]

11. Lets see if the Churches take care of the poor freepers.

It will surely be interesting to see.

[Anakin Skywalker]

13. How Come these A-holes....

Not related, but since "ownership society" is just a feel-good, rhetorical phrase use by Shrub, I think it's fair to ask his kind why "freedom of choice" does not extend to women, in particular, the right of a woman to have ownership of her own body?