The ownership of failure
Fred Barnes’s Rovian “big idea” for Republican “recovery”? — “ownership,” that is, the ownership society, including (yes, here we go again) Social Security privatization. (So he argued yesterday at the WSJ.)
Sure, why not?
Pretty much everything else has failed, more failure, including more electoral defeat, lies on the horizon, Iraq has been, is, and will continue to be a disaster mitigated only by deception, Bush has been one of the worst presidents of all time, the GOP’s primary political strategy teeters on the twin pillars of fearmongering and division, the party’s internal divisions are as naked as ever, the candidates for its presidential nomination are uninspiring at best, irrational hope hoists an actor, or the generic character he plays, into the ranks of party stardom, and the party’s two main ideas, or ideologies, are, at present, fascism and theocratism, Christian nationalism of a decidedly authoritarian nature.
Even Fred Barnes, Krazy Kristol’s partner-in-lunacy at The Murdoch Standard, finds all that rather troubling, not because it’s all inherently troubling but because the Republicans won’t win if that’s all they’ve got. (Can you feel his pain?)
Hence: “ownership.” (Forget that Americans don’t want what the Republicans want to give them. I’m sure there’s some Rovian plan to scare them into submission once more.)
Hence this piece of advice: “The recipe for Republicans is to stop acting like, well, Republicans — that is, Republicans of recent vintage.”
Good luck with that. You know what they say about the leopard.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “The ownership of failure”
Fred Barnes is an ——–. The “ownership” vision is great if you can afford to join the “Murdoch Gang” on the SS Weakly Standard. FB is a bigger sycophant than Billy Kristol, but IMO he lacks the sharp intellect of Kristol. Barnes and Kristol benefitted from Murdoch’s welfare…
Wow, I think maybe you should start blogging over at Dkos – you’d fit right in there. This post is the most hyperbolic, inane and incoherent thing I’ve read
all dayall week. This post, in my mind, represents the worst that blogging has to offer. It’s unnecessarily mean and contains ZERO value-added information to say nothing of analysis.How about a cogent argument against SS privatization instead of mindless ad hominems? If SS privatization is such a bad thing, it should be easy to make that argument, correct?
Entropy,
A lot of the arguments about privatizing SS were widely publicized when Bush tried to sell the idea.
Personally, my qualms result from a conviction that SS is a safety net that can’t be replicated by private accounts, especially for those who can aspire to accumulating only modest ones.
When the market swings up or down, those with hefty accounts are not immediately affected. It’s not the same when a modest account suddenly loses a big part of its value, especially if that should happen on the eve of retirement.
Another issue conerns the instance when an elderly couple face huge medical bills and their retirement account is their only asset. It’s quite conceivable they would dip into that account to pay current bills and be left with nothing.
I could offer other scenarios, but they would all add up to the same thing. The loss of a guaranteed safety net if frightening for those with low or modest incomes, because they are so vulnerable on many fronts.
It’s been a very bad policy from the start to throw proceeds from SS collections into the general treasury and not keep the money in trust for retirees,
At any rate, now we are in a bad place and reform of some sort is necessary. Privaatizing SS in its entirety will not appeal to those many folks who need some assurance for their old age sustenance, however.
Well, the Bush plan would only have “privatized” part of a person’s SS benefits and I put “privatized” in quotes because there were significant restrictions on where one could invest the money, under what circumstance it could be withdrawn and used for other purposes, etc.
Still, Doma, your arguments boil down to protecting people from their own ignorance or stupidity. That can be a good thing up to a certain point, but it can be taken too far.
Now, I’m not convinced private accounts are the answer, but I’m pissed as hell that I’ll have to pay for the boomers to retire and it will likely be at a premium. And if we get nationalized health care, then I’ll be paying not only for the boomer’s retirement but also for their medical expenses (provided it goes beyond the current medicare). It’s also in question that I’ll see any SS money when I retire since the system is inherently insolvent. It’s one reason I’m planning for the absence of any SS benefits and am, in essence, paying double – saving for my own retirement while funding the current crop of retirees. So in that regard, the ability to “own” part of my government SS retirement does have allure since Congress could not raid it for pork and I would have the security of knowing that a certain portion would always be there and the politicians could not take it away.
Certainly the vagarities of the market are a concern, but they are a manageable one. After all, millions of people have 401k’s for retirement. The key is moving money from riskier investments to low-risk and no-risk ones as one gets closer to retirement.
I would be more enamored of the current system if it was, you know, an actual plan that involved SAVING money and redistributing it for retirees instead of simply taxing those currently in the work force to pay for those who are not.
Still, I’m on the fence about private accounts – the devil, as always, is in the details, but the hyperbole and vitriolic of Mr. Stickings’ post does nothing to further anyone’s understanding of the topic.
“…..but the hyperbole and vitriolic of Mr. Stickings’ post does nothing to further anyone’s understanding of the topic.â€
Yeah, between him and Mullen this place has become “moderate†in name only. I’m looking for a site that takes moderation more seriously, any ideas from anyone?
Well, grognard, you could try Powerline or LGF. As far as Entropy’s post is concerned I am rather tired of conservatives who post the same knee jerk claims about social programs as always. And anyone who thinks that the risks of the private market are manageable when it comes to a social safety net program just isn’t paying attention.
And why is it that people who think that “…protecting people from their own ignorance or stupidity.” can be taken too far but all too often they don’t think the same applies to letting the free markets have their way?
Jim,
You’re projecting on me.
I made it clear that I’m not convinced privatization is the answer and acknowledge the downsides. I said I was on the fence but explained WHY I personally feel the idea has some merit. If that makes me “conservative” in your eyes then it says much more about you than it does about me.
And your second paragraph goes further and attributes to me things I’ve never said. Just as I believe that we should be vary wary of allowing our government to protect us from ourselves through the power of the state, I equally believe government has a critical role in the mis-named idea of the “free market.” Government regulation is necessary to keep markets fair, to standardize rules of conduct and to provide a framework in which market forces can operate. That is quite the contrary to what you imply I believe.
In short, I think you would be much better served debating issues on their merits rather than lame attempts at impugning an individual’s motives, political philosophy, etc. Like the original post, Jim, your reply is completely content and analysis-free.
One area you sort of grazed with your reply is the question of manageability in the private market. That question is, in essence, a risk-reward calculation. One might argue that no amount of market risk, even if it is very small, is worth it for something as important as a social safety net. That is a valid argument and one you might have made had your reply been about debating the issue’s merits. It is a compelling argument and is a big reason why I’m still on the fence.
But for me, personally, I still see me and others of my generation getting doubly screwed by paying for the boomers in retirement and facing the possibility that SS won’t be around when it’s my turn. You see, in my eyes, the social security safety net carries risk as well which is why I’m personally saving enough money so that I hopefully won’t have to depend on it.
As I said before, if Social Security was a program that was not a largely pay-as-you-go system, but one that saved and invested, then I’d be on-board with a completely mandatory, government-run system. But the simple fact is that as it’s currently designed and run, the demographic bulge of the boomer generation will bankrupt it unless people like me either pay more, the boomers receive less, or something in between.
Entropy,
Your post included this:
Perhaps you do not share the view that I’ve seen among most of those who think that privatization of a social safety net is workable, that the free market should be allowed to govern everything. If not I apologize for implying that you do.
But you most definitely are buying into an argument of theirs about the “inherent insolvency” of the SS system, which comes from very questionable assumptions.
Such as?
The assumption that people are now living longer and therefore draw more benefits than was originally intentioned? The assumption that the boomer bubble increases the number of people in retirement and the ratio of those in retirement to those in the workforce supporting them? The assumption that those two factors combined mean that either benefits will have to be cut, or more money will have to be taxed ?
Even now, when the boomers are in their peak earning years, and the retired generation is smaller than they are there are problems. This will only get worse as the boomers begin to retire, particularly since Congress raids any SS surplus to fund other projects.
The assumption I have seen most who think the system will have problems cite large numbers of boomers retiring at 62 and most retiring at 65. The believers in the death of SS tend to underestimate how many boomers will keep working past those ages, IMO. Many don’t have sufficient savings to retire at those ages and others just don’t want to and won’t do it unless forced.