Not content with further enriching the filthy rich, many of their fortunes coming at the expense of the future of all life on the planet, the Bushoids feel compelled to drive the hard pressed into an old age of poverty and suffering, for generations to come.
That's pretty much the Social Security plan Bush is offering. Paul Krugman does the math. Quotes from his New York Times column are in itals.
He asserts, as do many who don't fudge the numbers, that if the economy grows as it has, there is no crisis in Social Security for the next half century. The point isn't that there might not be, because if you ask the Dash brothers, and nobody does, it's likely that Social Security will be a comparatively minor crisis at mid century compared with everything else that's falling apart, or else it will already be part of a sensible and comprehensive support package for all, cradle to grave.
Anyway, we've got at least twenty-five years to keep tabs on Social Security before we have anything but fantasy to judge its solvency on. Assuming that government goes on as it has, which is to regularly rob the Social Security trust fund with a boldness that makes Bonnie and Clyde look like a couple of Hollywood actors.
The Bushoids now want to cut benefits for "the wealthy." So they've woken up to the inequity of their tax cut, and are trying in their admittedly stupid way to make amends? Not exactly. Here Krugman finds the exact analogy (which we praise because this is the first thing we thought of, the debates...):
In last fall's debates, Mr. Bush asserted that "most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans." Since most of the cuts went to the top 10 percent of the population and more than a third went to people making more than $200,000 a year, Mr. Bush's definition of middle income apparently reaches pretty high.
But defenders of Mr. Bush's Social Security plan now portray benefit cuts for anyone making more than $20,000 a year, cuts that will have their biggest percentage impact on the retirement income of people making about $60,000 a year, as cuts for the wealthy.
In case you're hazy on the US dollar, making 20 thou a year won't rent you an apartment in most of America, unless perhaps you forgo eating, and $60 thou is about the minimum for the middle class "ownership society" or at least a small home somewhere.
But simple cynicism in selling this apparently loopy proposal is just the tip of the melting iceberg. The proposal doesn't just penalize people who are barely making it but it continues to enrich the very rich, through the combination of tax cuts for the wealthy and Social Security benefit cuts for the poor. Here's Krugman's numbers:
Suppose you're earning $60,000 a year. On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year. Not a very good deal.
Suppose, finally, that you're making $1 million a year. You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by about $9,400 per year. We have a winner!
So this is the Bush agenda. It's not enough to increase suffering for millions of people while he's in office, by ignoring the health care crisis, bleeding the states' ability to help their citizens, sending the young of lower income families to bleed and die for his vanity war in Iraq, etc., he is going to increase suffering for millions of people well into the future, not just with the effects of his record deficits, nor his refusal to deal with global heating and bungling of nuclear arms control, but by paying off the rich children and grandchildren of his obscene and obscenely rich friends, by stealing even more from the poor and middle class. Now that's vision. Praise the lords, and passeth all understanding.
The Final Insult - New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment