Myth Taken Politics

Deceptive Advertising by Cato Institute

The Cato Institute thought they had a winner, dissolve Social Security. But although time marches on and their cause loses steam and credibility, they still hold out hope. Today in the New York Times op-ed page they took out an ad. Unfortunately, they do not have to uphold journalistic ethics or avoid deceptive advertising practices. To be fair, they may actually believe what they wrote. So in the spirit of editorial advice I have made some notes that they can use in their corrections piece below.

Rethinking Common Myths About Social Security

1. America is growing older and therefore will destabilize Social Security.
America is growing older and therefore the necessity of Social Security is even more obvious. To pare back Social Security would be to do the opposite of what was intended. According to figures on the Social Security web site, Social Security was born in part because of the boom in retirees (and urbanization). The life span of Americans' had shot up by 10 years in only three decades (1900 to 1930). Also, life spans increased as more children survive childhood which means that productive years of workers probably increased substantially. Also, with less children per family now and many households with both spouses in the workforce, the ratio of non-worker to worker is not as extreme as looking solely at the ratio of worker to retiree.
2. Social Security is a finite resource that may run out.
All resources are finite which is why societies have and will continue to try to increase efficiency and find new resources. Since 1930, the percentage of food production workers has decreased substantially. The number of people to build cars, clothes, buildings, appliances, etc per item generally has decreased substantially. We have just embarked on a networked society that is driving productivity up substantially. It may be the case that Malthusian economics could come to bear, but that catastrophe will impact all of society, not just the elderly. I have to put my hope and effort into increasing resources to supply all Americans (and people) to live.
3. The Social Security Trust Fund should not be Trusted.
It is easier to take something away from a person when they do not believe that it is theirs or that the thing has no value. People's trust in the system is what keeps it going. Just like people's trust in their bank accounts deepened when the government insured depositors, having a government that issues bonds and money stand behind all their bonds and money allows for a stable economy. My opinion is it is better not to trust organizations who claim that Social Security is insecure because we cannot trust our democratically controlled government. I would rather trust organizations that give the full story about all government finances and promote the trust in and legitimacy of our democratic institutions. In any case, do some research and evaluate the facts and positions dispassionately for yourselves.

Anti-Progressive Indexing

Fortunately for the United States, the incompetence of the Bush administration is starting to shine through the glare of patriotism that had obscured the massive failures of this administration. Even our Fed. Chairman has reminded us of the "budget" triggers he had recommended to pull back the tax giveaways. The Bush administration is close to the biggest heist of all times, the raiding of our society's biggest nest egg, Social Security. But as it becomes cornered by a faltering economy and poor reputation the administration is resorting to desperate measures including appearing in an unstaged press conference and actually describing the eviscerating measures.

The ultra-conservatives have basic misunderstanding of the function of a democratic government. I get the impression that they believe that our government's main function is to redistribute wealth and that in the past, the redistribution has been geared to taking from those that succeed economically the most and giving to those that have failed economically. So now the effort is to change the direction of that redistribution. (See below for the actual main role of our government)

I believe this myth has led to their peculiar and dishonest tactic of calling reducing Social Security benefits as being progressive (the administration probably has been holding back on this portion of the plan because it was so clearly a negative). Dressing up massive cuts of a system that people depend on as being "progressive"  is a bald-faced lie.

Since most people understand intrinsically that the role of Social Security is as a cushion for everyone (and I mean everyone) to avoid impoverishment in their old age and in the old age of their parents. It is not a redistribution of wealth from one person to another, but rather as a pension plan, it is designed to redistribute resources through time. And this helps perform the most important role of a democratic government in society, to protect all of its inhabitants. I hope that all of us, reread the founding mission of our government which is clearly outlined in the text below.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - entire Preamble of the U.S. Constitution

Blame the Victim

Hmmmm. The Social Security law states that money be spent putting the onus onto the government to come up with the money. The President wants to shift the funds from this protected by program into "personal" accounts. Then when the market turns down as it does periodically, the Social Security safety net will no longer protect citizens. Under the current Social Security system any threat of lack of funds would be met by calls for government reform and outrage at mismanagement. Under the President's plan the same threat of lack of funds the calls for better management would be softer and mainly from those crushed by an unfeeling market. Those that are years away from retirement will be hopeful of a market recovery and support subsidizing corporations to prop the market up, and those that "mistakenly" placed their faith in the "scientifically" proven market returns will be chided for their stupidity. The point of personal accounts is to shift the blame from our government and our society to the individuals who are blamed for circumstances usually beyond their control. Shame, shame and more shame on the greedy who perpetuate the lie of personal choice in our interdependent society.* (read the following story by Pete Seeger)

Potemkin Town Hall Meetings

With the polls indicating support for the Bush plan (or sort of an idea, but not actual legislation) on Social Security dropping fast, the campaign is back on the road. In each village, the advance folks cook up a fake town hall meeting (fake in that it is based on invitations of predominantly supporters as opposed to what a town hall meeting is). The Potemkin Village approach is supposed to help gain support for the plan. May be people will be fooled by the accounts of these "meetings" although surely it must be pretty obvious that the questions are rigged.

But even outside of those echo chambers of positive thoughts there are some aspects of the plan that do not seem to come up. I will list a few that I feel are important, but realize do not fit into the "game plan" of defeating the Bush plan. First the Bush plan is designed to be overly bureaucratic and stilted. Unlike their rhetoric, the plan is to make it hard for individuals to invest money in stock the way they might want, the ability to use the money is heavily restricted and the opportunity to vote the stock is completely verboten. Although Democrats are unlikely to bring up these points, perhaps because it might sound like an endorsement of private accounts, it is crucial to understand the plan in these terms. Republicans seem to like to destroy and/or support government entitlements by creating huge bureaucracies and red tape. Look at the unnecessary complexity of the Medicare drug benefit system.

I am trying to understand what leads them to propose bizarre plans. It is as if they do not believe that government can be efficient or good, so they prove it by purposely making it bad and inefficient. This is only a theory to explain their behavior. Perhaps it is part of crafty way to "prove" to citizens that government is always a bad solution. I can not figure it out. Nor can I figure out why opponents of the plan do not even discuss these aspects of the Bush plan. The absurdities of myths are very hard to perceive from those whose debates are framed by them.

Ownership Society versus Democracy

We will all start hearing about the ownership society from those representing the biggest owners (Bush will make it a theme in his inauguration). This onslaught is part of a deceptive campaign to wrest control and assets from most people, and I will attempt to expain how the myth of the "ownership society" is itself is a dangerous objective. First it is important to note that "ownership society" is short for "individual ownership society." Second it should be clear that ownership implies control over property and that that property is described in absolute terms that denies the tenuousness nature of property. And much like a magician using indirection to fool us, the biggest owners will attempt to keep our eyes on meager payoffs, while they pick our collective pockets.

Framework for Understanding the Social Security Debate

Often lost in the debates are the fundamentals. At its most basic Social Security is a social contract between all of us that seniors won't be left to starve or lose all means of support. It was a major progression in civilization where our society recognized that we could afford to make this contract and we couldn't afford to devolve into barbarism. At its core the current debate is over whether to end this social contract. The so-called privatizing of social security will allow some seniors to be "losers" and will allow them to sink below our living standard.

A better argument against privatizing Social Security

Open Letter to Paul Krugman,

First, thanks for taking time from your textbook writing to rail against the Republican's attempt to plunder Social Security. However, making reasoned arguments about the lottery nature of the stock market conflicts with a large segment of the lottery ticket buying public. There is another argument that might turn the Republicans against their own scheme.

First, I understand that the Republicans are not intending to allow Social Security participants to be able to vote by proxy or otherwise on the shares they would "own" of the numerous companies listed on the stock exchanges. And the Republicans would never allow civic minded money managers to handle the vast sums of money that will be invested (like some of the pension fund boards do now). But, I believe that once trillions of dollars of public funds are invested, and people understand that they own significant and, perhaps, controlling interest in these firms, they will demand certain decent behaviors from these firms.

So, in short, the argument is to assert that privatizing might be a great idea, because the public can finally assure that all public companies must provide comprehensive health coverage, to never allow companies to outsource solely based on using underpaid and poorly treated labor exchange rates, and to not allow public companies to endanger the health of our neighborhoods or the world.

Once the Republicans realize that the public will flock to privatization based on this potential (and a promise by Democrats who would sign on to this), the Republicans will lose. They cannot afford to threaten the control of the private sector based on a risky get rich quick scheme. Currently, Republicans believe that they can steal Social Security, and that the new owners of stock market will allow a small wealthy minority to leverage small shareholders' shares while taking advantage of higher yielding government bonds.

Thanks for reading this. Let me know if it makes sense and worth using.
--addendum: Don't believe that Republicans are aware of and scared of this, just read the CATO white paper (or my copy if they take theirs down).