>On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
>
> The problem that Louis seems to be noting is that a move is afoot to make
> social security means tested which converts it to a welfare
> program. Rorty
> doesn't realize that once a program becomes a program for the
> needy, that it is
> doomed.
Michael, I think you and Louis have the politics of this one exactly
backwards. Preserving the earnings test is not just about redistribution,
it's about maintaining Social Security as a pension system, not an
investment vehicle.
If people can keep working, yet pick up their full social security check,
how is this different from a government 401K plan? The latter is exactly
what the Right wants to convert Social Security into.
And redistribution of income is the only justification for the savage 15%
wage tax that FICA imposes on low-income workers. This new payout to
upper-income older wage earners is going to skew the somewhat redistributive
nature of Social Security towards regressivity. I'd be curious to know if
Citizens for Tax Justice or EPI have run the numbers on this. Max?
Worse, if this reform encourages a lot more upper-income folks to keep
working into their late 60s, it will create broader political support for
increasing the retirement age, another goal of the Right on Social Security.
This will be fine for richer workers who will have 401Ks etc. if they really
want to retire early, but will savagely hurt many working class folks,
especially in more strenuous or physically damaging jobs in blue collar and
pink collar occupations, where later retirement is a horrible burden.
Why the Democratic Party's capitulation to a long-time conservative goal is
praiseworthy is beyond me. It seems, though, that the chance to bash a
labor-aligned liberal like Rorty is more important than criticizing the
triumph of a decades-long rightwing goal to undermine Social Security and
benefit rich folks at the same time.
Social Security survived for sixty-five years with the earnings test, so it
is more likely part of the reason for its resiliency not a hindrance as
Louis's and your argument seems to argue.
-- Nathan Newman
