At 09:59 PM 1/12/2005 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >Sometime listmember Brad DeLong's take: > >http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/ > >Why Am I Not For Bush's Social Security Reform? > >It's strange--I ought to be a member of what Joshua Micah Marshall calls >the "faint-hearted faction"--those Democrats excited about doing something >for Social Security involving private accounts, and eager to strike a deal >with Republicans. I do, after all, think it quite likely that the U.S. >government is leaving some money on the sidewalk by not investing part of >the Social Security Trust Fund in equities. I do believe that Social >Security has long-run financing problems, and that the sooner these are >fixed, the better. I do see merit in giving Social Security beneficiaries >more secure property rights in the prefunded portion of their Social >Security benefits, so that it is theirs by more than the Grace of a future >Congress. And the important and dangerous problem that private accounts >shift risk off the government (where it belongs) and onto individual >beneficiaries can be managed--restrict private acccounts to, say, be >invested 60% in long-term Treasuries and 40% in the broad stock market, >and the amount of risk shifted off is very small. > >So why, then, is my attitude toward the Bush administration's Social >Security non-proposal like that of the Dread Pirate Roberts? > >Experience. We've seen what Bush administration proposals turn into. We've >seen it turn a surplus into a deficit. We've seen its idea of a farm bill. >We've seen its steel tariff--bad economics, bad mercantilism, and bad >politics. We've seen the recent corporate tax monstrosity. We've seen the >Medicare drug benefit. We've heard from Paul O'Neill. We've heard from >John DiIulio. The Bush administration is batting as close to a zero on >economic policy as an administration can--and economic policy is the >bright spot in this administration. > >So one's assessment of what the Bush Social Security "reform" plan is >going to be must be more-or-less like this: it may look cute and friendly >now, but it won't stay cute and friendly for long. Somehow--we're not sure >how--it's gonna get mean. It's going to get ugly. And it's going to get >stupid. The chances that whatever the Bush administration proposes and the >Republican Congressional leadership gets behind will be good for the >country are indistinguishable from zero.
One question I would love to ask, and I apologize if this sounds a little harsher than it really is, but here is my question: And how can a neutral, fair-minded observer distinguish the above answer from "Because I am bought and paid for by the Democratic Pary, and there is simply no way in hell that we are going to work with a President of the opposing Party to bridge our differences on the centerpiece economic agenda item of his second term" ???? Just wondering.... JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
