Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (97215)	1/27/2005 5:03:34 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793846

Hewitt - Pro-reform Social Security Blogging --Where Is It? President Bush met yesterday with the Congressional Black Caucus and on Tuesday with a group of African American leaders who had supported his re-election. Here are some of the accounts of one or both meetings are in the Washington Post, The Washington Times, and two accounts --one here and one here-- from the New York Times. Part of the president's emphasis in these meetings has been the social security program's disparate treatment of blacks and whites. The National Review's Rich Lowry outlined that disparity early in the year, and on January 17, the reliable anti-everything-Bush extremists at the Minneapolis Star Tribune denounced the argument that a disparity exists as a lie. David John is an expert on this disparity, working at The Heritage Foundation. He isn't hard to find. Given the president's message to his supporters and his visit with the Black Caucus, shouldn't major media at least have made passing mention to the facts of this disparity? The heart of the question is simple: What percentage of social security taxes are paid into the system by blacks and their employers and what percentage of benefits do blacks take out. I don't know and haven't found the answer, but it is a very interesting question, and one with huge ramifications for the reform drive. Perhaps MSM could poke a round a little and let us know? Don't count on it. MSM is acting as an arm of the Democratic Obstructionist Party, as the New York Times headlines this morning --"Bush Plan Poses Tough 'Safety Net' Questions" and "Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan"-- make clear. Every negative angle will be played up, every argument for reform denied or ignored. My favorite example of this dynamic to date is the new issue of The New Yorker, wherein reliable Hedrick Hertzberg outlines for blue state elites what it is they ought to be telling each other about social security reform. Keep in mind that after years and years of "lockboxes" and Bill Clinton rhetoric about the crisis in social security, it is pretty hard to argue that there is no pressing need to confront the structural problems in social security. But Hertzberg delivers for the home team Blues: "The 'crisis,' therefore, is not 'now.' It’s as bogus as the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security—which, in reality, is an 'astroturf,' or fake-grassroots, front for the National Association of Manufacturers. There is no Social Security crisis, and there is not likely to be one." But Hertzberg knows how intellectually dishonest such an argument is, and so covers himself with deniability for any future complicity in the crash of the social security system, or at least positions himself to argue in a Democratic Administration down the road for immediate pressing reform: "At some point over the next couple of decades, of course, some adjustments will have to be made. There are many reasonable possibilities: a modest rise in the retirement age, to reflect increases in health and longevity; a rise in the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax, which now cuts out at ninety thousand dollars a year; adding a bit to the progressivity of the benefits. One can even imagine a national decision to devote a larger proportion of national resources to the care of the old, given that a larger proportion of the population will be old—preferably to be paid for by taxing something we’d like to see less of (like fossil-fuel consumption) instead of something we’d like to see more of (like jobs)." Let me translate this: We need to reform the system. It has to be done within 20 years. That reform should come in the form of higher taxes. If the pro-reform community is smart, it will establish a pro-reform go-to blog wherein the central arguments in favor of reform are easily located and where the disingenuous smokescreens such as Hertzberg's are taken apart line-by-line and non-coverage of crucial aspects in the story, like the gaps in benefits for blacks, are covered. I just wonder if old DC is like MSM: incapable of trusting to or of understanding how the new media works. If you post reliable information and persuasive argument, they will travel. Perhaps this pro-reform infrastructure will surface after the State of the Union.