Reprinted from: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/gnazzo/2005/truth/part1.html
SOCIAL SECURITY DEBATE
The Social Security debate has become as popular as the inflation versus deflation debate. Both issues are obviously of grave importance in regards to the future well-being of our Nation. As with any complex topic, the opinions vary from a to z. Ask ten “experts” their opinion, and you will most likely get eleven different answers.
Paul Krugman, writer for the New York Times, is of the opinion that there is a lot of confusion, which is the main culprit, of the many misunderstandings of the social security system, which he apparently believes he has a solid understanding of. Let’s take a closer peak to see what we can learn from Mr. Krugman on the subject. He begins by saying:
”There is a lot of confusion in the debate over Social Security privatization, much of it deliberate. This essay discusses the meaning of the trust fund, which privatizers declare either real or fictional at their convenience; the likely rate of return on private accounts, which has been greatly overstated; and the (ir) relevance of putative reductions in far future liabilities." Paul Krugman, Confusions about Social Security - VOLUME 2 (2005), ISSUE 1: A Special Issue on Social Security, Columns]
I agree with Mr. Krugman’s view regarding the privatization of the social security fund. I do not believe that privatization is a good idea, or that it would solve any “problems”, but might very well create more problems. However, I disagree with Mr. Krugman’s focus on the privatization topic as being the central or critical issue of importance when discussing social security. Mr. Krugman continues on by saying:
“There are three main points of confusion in the Social Security debate (confusion that is deliberately created, for the most part, but never mind that for now). These are:
-
The meaning of the trust fund: in order to create a sense of crisis, proponents of privatization consider the trust fund either real or fictional, depending on what is convenient.
-
The rate of return that can be expected on private accounts: privatizers claim that there is a huge free lunch from the creation of these accounts, a free lunch that is based on very dubious claims about future stock returns.
-
How to think about implicit liabilities in the far future: privatizers brush aside the huge negative fiscal consequences of their plans in the short run, claiming that reductions in promised payments many decades in the future are an adequate offset” [Krugman].
Mr. Krugman then proceeds to explain what social security is, however, his explanation didn’t appear all that clear and concise, I’m not sure if it even appeared, so I thought I would provide a quick synopsis of just what social security is and isn’t. Then at least we will all know just what it is we are discussing, which usually helps tremendously in such endeavors.
SOCIAL INSURANCE
Social Security is a social insurance system. It was established in 1935 with the intent and purpose of providing benefits to workers and their family members upon retirement, disability, or death. It is what is called an earned benefit insurance program.
What this means is that only those who work and pay taxes are eligible for social security benefits. By their labor, and by paying taxes on their earned income, derived from their labor, workers are then eligible to receive benefits, i.e. payments in money upon retirement, disability, or death.
Note the distinction that social security is a social insurance system. This is a critical point and will be revisited. Also note that the social insurance system in an earned benefit insurance program, as this distinction is also very important. Now for some quoted information from the Economic Policy Institute, which provides some definitions and explanations for these terms:
“Social Security benefits are guaranteed to beneficiaries. Because Social Security is not an investment scheme but rather a social insurance program, its benefits will continue to be paid as long as a beneficiary depends on them. Social Security's finances are not subject to the ups and downs of the stock market, or the luck of individual investors. The promise of Social Security benefits is instead backed by the good faith of the U.S. government, pretty much in the same way that the government backs the value of the dollar. Thus, there is no uncertainty for beneficiaries—once they start receiving benefits, they will continue to receive them in the future.” [Economic Policy Institute].
So far things sound pretty good, almost too good – to be true. Good intentions do appear to be in place, offering those in need a helping hand, which help they have earned by their own labor and payment of taxes into the social security system. But perhaps there are other ways just as, if not more, efficient?
WHAT PROBLEM?
Of particular interest in the above quote is the sentence that reads: “The promise of social security benefits is instead backed by the good faith of the U.S. government, pretty much in the same way that the government backs the value of the dollar.” This is one of the most critical issues, and will be revisited in detail.
Mr. Krugman states in his article the following:
“The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in social security’s future is this: if social security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, it’s just part of the federal budget: there can’t be a social security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis. Rising social security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but it’s hard to make the case that it will be central.” [Krugman – Confusions about Social Security]
Thank you Mr. Krugman, for that very clear explanation and most powerful reinsurance, as to the soundness of the social security system. We can’t possibly have a social security crisis – just a general budget crisis, of which social security might be a contributing cause. Nothing to be concerned about – is there?
It sounds like Mr. Krugman has a fair grasp of the situation, however, I’m starting to get a bit concerned. Is a general budget crisis serious stuff, which could impact social security and or vice versa? Or is a general budget crisis something we should just brush aside, as perhaps being part of some other larger crisis that goes by another name, one that we let the other guys in a more appropriate department worry about? Kind of like a game of pass the buck.
Is anyone else starting to sense sleepless nights in the offing? Maybe we should pull the blanket over our head and hide beneath the covers, as it seems to work pretty well for Mr. Krugman. What you don’t see or admit exists can’t hurt you – can it? Could the boogie man really be hiding under the bed?
TO THE RESCUE
But wait, coming to Mr. Krugman’s rescue is Jonathan, from the Past Peak website, and he has written a whole series explaining what Mr. Krugman was trying to explain. So let’s see what Jonathan has to say:
“As Paul Krugman points out, there are two problems with this position.”
“The more significant problem, however, is that there's a fundamental illogic in singling out the government's obligations to Social Security as somehow distinct from its debt obligations generally. The so-called "IOUs" held by the trust fund are US government bonds. The government got money to spend, and in return it issued promises to repay, with interest — i.e., it issued (sold) bonds. The treasury sells bonds to all sorts of buyers, Social Security being only one of them. The proceeds from these sales finance the deficit.”
“In a world where the government always operated under balanced budgets, so that it had no debt (bonds) to sell, the Social Security trust fund would invest in something else. Conversely, if the trust fund hadn't bought the bonds, the government would have sold them to someone else. The government had debt to finance. It would have done so, whether the Social Security trust fund existed or not.”
“There may be a fiscal crisis in the offing, but, if so, it is a general problem of large-scale deficits and indebtedness, caused in no small measure by tax cuts for the wealthy. It's not a Social Security problem. Put another way, the problem is that so many bonds are being sold, not that Social Security happens to be buying some of them.” [Jonathan – Social Security at Part 3 — The Trust Fund Jan. 2005].”
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT
Well, now I feel much better. First, Mr. Krugman has explained that we do not have a social security problem, only a general budget crisis. Now Jonathan explains that we “may have a fiscal crisis in the offing,” but that’s just part of the “general problem of large-scale deficits and indebtedness. The real problem is that so many bonds are being sold, not that social security happens to be buying them.”
Calm voices of reason in a tumultuous world. Pretty cool – isn’t it? Or is the temperature starting to rise in the kitchen because the oven door has been left open and the stove is blasting out heat?
I thought the part that reads, “in a world where the government always operated under balanced budgets, so that it had no debt (bonds) to sell, the Social Security trust fund would invest in something else... conversely, if the trust fund hadn't bought the bonds, the government would have sold them to someone else. The government had debt to finance. It would have done so, whether the Social Security trust fund existed or not” is most telling. But just what is it telling?
First, does a world exist where the government always operated under balanced budgets? If not, then the point trying to be made has no standing.
Second, the government had debt to finance - correct. So “if the trust fund hadn't bought the bonds, the government would have sold them to someone else.” Correct again. But what does that have to do with it?
It being the discussion as to whether their is a crisis with social security, or what other crisis’s there may be out there lurking in the shadows. Perhaps we have another one of those paradoxical conundrums to deal with. Bummer.
Lastly, the more I think about it, I’m not sure just what Jonathan means when he says, “the problem is that so many bonds are being sold, not that social security happens to be buying some of them.” Perhaps he will offer a future explanation to alleviate the chance that I am misinterpreting what he said.
However, the way it reads it sure sounds like a case is being made that says there is no problem with social security buying or investing in bonds, bonds that collectively add up to, as he calls it – a problem: “the problem is that so many bonds are being sold, not that Social Security happens to be buying some of them.”
It appears that the government is selling too many bonds, or is issuing too much debt, or as Jonathan says, that’s just part of the “general problem of large-scale deficits and indebtedness.” So according to Jonathan, there’s no problem that social security is buying bonds that are being over issued. If there’s a problem with the bonds, that’s the bonds problem. Hmm.
AN ANALOGY
Say my child starts hanging around with some kids at school that take drugs. The kids take the drugs because they have emotional problems that they are trying to escape from. They are in a state of denial. At the very least, they are attempting to self-medicate the pain they are feeling.
I would say that I may have a problem, or at the least a potential problem, with my child; and that my child may have a potential problem based on the company she has chosen to associate with. My child is being exposed to questionable and potentially dangerous behavior.
For me to ignore and deny the situation, and the possibilities it entails, by saying, hey man, my kids cool, it’s just her choice of friends that aren’t cool, and who are the real problem – such complacency is a prescription for an accident looking for a time and place to happen. And it will. Nip it in the bud, before it has time to blossom
An even bigger mistake would be for me to think that her friends don’t even have a problem, it’s just that drug dealers sell drugs, and they have to sell them to somebody, so why not her friends? But then the real rub – why not sell to her as well? When it gets that close to home, it unfortunately gets easier to see. Suddenly people take notice.
Problems do not go away by ignoring them, or by denying they exist. Saying it’s not your problem, let somebody else worry about it, doesn’t cut it as well. Problems get solved by action, not by lack of action, except in fairly uncommon situations, where non-action is the preferred course of action. However, this usually applies to aggression and the response, thereto. There’s a saying that goes: “if your not part of the solution, then you’re definitely part of the problem.”
I don’t know about Mr. Krugman, but I’m not sure if I would want Jonathan writing anything in support of my position on social security. But hopefully I just don’t understand it all, and one or the two of them will offer a future explanation to clear up the mess we seem to have had placed before us.
THE ROUND UP PLOY
Getting back to Mr. Krugman, in another section of his paper he states:
“But the privatizers won’t take yes for an answer when it comes to the sustainability of social security. Their answer to the pretty good numbers is to say that the trust fund is meaningless, because it is invested in U.S. government bonds. They aren’t really saying that U.S. government bonds are worthless; their point is that the whole notion of a separate budget for social security is a fiction. And if that’s true, the idea that one part of the government can have a positive trust fund while the government as a whole is in debt does become strange.” [Paul Krugman, Confusions about Social Security].
Just to set the record straight, so their isn’t any more confusion than already exists: I do not believe in privatization of social security. However, why do I, or anyone else, have to belong to the “privatizers” to question the validity of social security?
Might it be because to label all possible dissenters under one group, i.e. the “privatizers”, it thereby, makes it easier to seemingly answer all questioners on the validity of social security, by answering just this one group – the “privatizers”. Cause if that’s the case – that’s just a case of weaseling out of a complete and fully disclosed discussion of all the issues involved in a fairly complex topic.
The following information is from the government website on social security: Trust Fund Data:
“The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts maintained by the Department of the Treasury. They serve two purposes: (1) they provide a mechanism for keeping track of all income to and disbursements from the trust funds, and (2) the assets of the funds provide automatic spending authority. To clarify the second point, no legislation is needed to spend a portion of trust fund assets on benefits or administrative costs (the Social Security Act limits expenditures to benefits and administrative costs).”
Notice the last sentence that reads “no legislation is needed to spend a portion of trust fund assets on benefits or administrative costs (the Social Security Act limits expenditures to benefits and administrative costs).” This point will be revisited.
INFLATION’S ROLE IN ALL OF THIS
Continuing on with information from the government website we read:
“Benefits to retired workers and their families, and to families of deceased workers, are paid from the OASI Trust Fund. Benefits to disabled workers and their families are paid from the DI Trust Fund.”
“A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial and actuarial status of the trust funds.”
If you click on the above link to the financial and actuarial status of the trust funds you will arrive at a list of government publications on social security. If you click on the first publication listed, 2005 OASDI Trustees Report , you can read the most recent trustee report.
You will be given a list of options to click on and read. Under the option labeled List of Figures you can find the following by scrolling down to chapter VI Appendixes and clicking on VI.F1 Estimated OASDI Income and Cost in Constant Dollars, Based on Intermediate Assumptions
“This section presents long-range projections in dollars of the operations of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds and in some cases the HI Trust Fund. Meaningful comparison of current dollar values over long periods of time can be difficult because of the effect of inflation. Some means of removing inflation is thus generally desirable. Several economic series or indices are provided to allow current dollars to be adjusted for changes in prices, wages, and certain other aspects of economic growth during the projection period.” [Trust Fund Data]
Notice the sentence that reads, “meaningful comparison of current dollar values over long periods of time can be difficult because of the effect of inflation.” Hmm. Now what could inflation have to do with this, to be so powerful and important that it renders meaningful comparisons of current dollar values difficult.
I don’t recall Krugman or Jonathan mentioning anything about this, but I may have missed that part. We will go into this in much more detail later on. For now, back to the government website.
SPECIAL-ISSUE SECURITIES
Next on the site the following is offered:
“By law, all income to the trust funds that is not immediately needed to pay expenses is invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues." Such securities are available only to the trust funds.
In the past, the Trust Funds have held "public issues" (marketable securities available to the general public). Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss or enjoy a gain if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.
Data on trust fund investments provide a breakdown by interest rate and trust fund for any month after 1989.” [Trust Fund Data]
All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues." Cool, special issues. Maybe this is why some aren’t too concerned with social security, but I don’t remember Mr. Krugman or Jonathan mentioning special issues. I thought they both used the term government bonds, and that Jonathan even mentioned that the government had to sell the bonds to someone, so if not social security, then someone else would have bought them.
But now we find they are special issued bonds – only for social security trust funds. Which means that “others” can’t purchase them. Hmm. The plot thickens. Why it’s almost like reading a mystery novel, or a novel mystery might be more apropos. Where’s Holmes when you need him? Out chasing that damn hound again. But I digress...
So what’s so special about these bonds? Well, it says that “unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value.” Yes indeed, that is a special arrangement. I wonder who thought that one up? Must have gotten a nice bonus for that one.
And what’s the part mean that reads, “marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss or enjoy a gain if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.”?
It sounds like these special issue bonds are safer or more flexible than “regular marketable securities”, allowing them to be akin to holding cash. Cool. Holding cash and getting paid an interest rate commensurate with long term bonds. Doesn’t get much more special than that.
I wonder why the government gets to do that, but the rest of us don’t. Maybe you should ask your Congressman, and vote accordingly.
LONG RANGE SOLVENCY
Further down the website we read:
“As stated in the answer to "What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?", most of the money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the current increase in the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.” [Trust Fund Data]
The last sentence gives one reason to pause, as it says, “without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary."
Now I’m getting confused, and hence a bit more concerned, but not to worry, I get confused easily. Everything is said to be cool, the fund is solvent. I’m not saying it isn’t. But I’m curious as to why the fund needs to invest in special issue bonds if everything is so copasetic?
And what caused the fund to switch from regular marketable government securities to the special issues? Was there something wrong with the regular issued ones?
Couple that with the last sentence that reads, “without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.” Hmm. I guess that answers why they invest in special issued securities, just in case they ever have to redeem them prior to maturity. Could there be other reasons as well. Hmm. The plot thickens even more. Yummy.
So why, if they are investing in securities that have a feature that allows for early redemption, are they stating that, “without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.”
Maybe I’m missing something, but doesn’t saying that “without legislation to restore long-range solvency”, sound like there is a bit of a problem?
First, to restore implies that something needs fixing, which implies it is broke, or it wouldn’t need fixing.
Secondly, that which needs to be restored is “long-range solvency”, and it definitely appears that somebody is concerned with the long-range solvency of social security, as in the social security administration – but not Mr. Krugman.
Then at the bottom of the website we find the following gems:
“Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 35 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.
In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 40 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.” [Trust Fund Data]
So if it is true that “the special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government”, and I’m not saying they are not – then why do they bother even having a special-issue security?
And if there aren’t any problems, then why are they looking at “options are being considered now, over 35 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted.”?
Finally, doesn’t the wording, “the trust funds become depleted within the next 40 years” sound a bit problematic? Somebody seems to be aware of the problem and a bit concerned, so why isn’t Krugman?
And I think it’s the guys that work for the government who wrote the information on the website that are most concerned, as they know the system that they work daily with. But I could be wrong. It has happened before, and I’m pretty sure it will happen again in the future as well.
But one thing I know for sure, Mr. Krugman is not concerned or worried at all. Why? Got me, I don’t know. Some say, however, that ignorance is bliss. But I don’t know that either, perhaps Mr. Krugman can enlighten us. On the social security site, the last words are:
“The assets of the larger trust fund (OASI), from which retirement benefits are paid, were nearly depleted in 1982. No beneficiary was shortchanged because the Congress enacted temporary emergency legislation that permitted borrowing from other Federal trust funds and then later enacted legislation to strengthen OASI Trust Fund financing. The borrowed amounts were repaid with interest within 4 years.” [Trust Fund Data]
WHAT MARKETS PAY ATTENTION TO
Returning to Mr. Krugman’s article, near the end we read:
“As has been widely noted, last year’s prescription drug law, if it really goes into effect as promised, worsens the long-run federal budget by much more than the entire accounting deficit of social security. If markets really looked far ahead, the passage of that law should have caused a sharp rise in interest rates, maybe even a crisis of confidence in federal solvency. In fact, everyone pretty much ignored the thing – just as they will ignore the putative future savings in the Bush plan.” [Krugman]
“What markets will pay attention to, just as they did in Argentina, is the surge in good old-fashioned debt.” [Paul Krugman, Confusions about Social Security]
Once again I find myself confused, and once again I hope Mr. Krugman explains this so even I can understand it. But when he says, “what markets will pay attention to, just as they did in Argentina, is the surge in good old-fashioned debt”, it appears that he and the market have both missed the surge in debt.
The surge in debt is being ignored just as Mr. Krugman states that the passage of the prescription law, and the sharp rise in interest rates, and the crisis of confidence in federal solvency that the passage of the law should have caused, are all being ignored. Ignorance is in vogue. It has almost become a paradigm.
As Jim Puplava clearly explains in his Storm Watch article Tipping Points, debt is expanding at unprecedented and alarming rates:
“In economic terms, the American consumer has acted as buyer of last resort. Last year American consumers borrowed $1,017.9 billion, up from $839.4 billion the previous year. Since the year 2000, consumer indebtedness increased by $3,246.2 billion compared to an increase of consumer income of $1,440 billion.”
“Outstanding consumer debt more than doubled to over $10 trillion between 1992 and 2004. While consumer balance sheets continue to be laden with debt, there are very few signs of savings."
“Last year savings in the US was only $133 billion, roughly a third of what it was in 1995 when savings was $306 billion.”
“In 1995 the US added $4 of debt for every $1 in savings. Last year that figure expanded to over $20 of debt for every $1 of savings.”
“The problem for most Americans is that taxes and inflation are taking their toll on most households. Income gains aren’t keeping up with inflation, which is grossly understated as a result of hedonics.”
“This has lead to more households turning to debt to pay for a lifestyle their incomes can’t support. The median family income has risen only 11% after adjusting for inflation since 1990.”
“At the same time, median household spending has jumped 30% and outstanding household debt has jumped 80%.” [courtesy of Jim Puplava - Storm Watch Update - Tipping Points]
Apparently both the market and Mr. Krugman have failed to notice and appreciate the recent surge in debt. The market missing the boat I can understand, the old greed versus fear thingy, and the madness of crowds engendered by the herd instinct. But how Mr. Krugman has missed this very obvious occurrence defies all sense of awareness of his supposed field of expertise. His grasp of the current situation seems to be tenuous at best, and most precarious at its worst.
Returning to Jonathan – Social Security at Part 5 — Motives Jan. 2005, unfortunately we don’t seem to fare any better. From part 5 we read:
“I think it's obvious that Republican motives in this have nothing to do with helping people like you and me — one just has to look at everything else they do. But, as it happens, in this case we don't have to guess. A strategy memo by Peter H. Wehner, deputy to Karl Rove, was leaked recently. It says, in part:
‘Let me tell you first what our plans are in terms of sequencing and political strategy. We will focus on Social Security immediately in this new year. Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. The notion that younger workers will receive anything like the benefits they have been promised is fiction, unless significant reforms are undertaken. We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform.’
“Hence, the hype. The most important sentence, though, is probably this:”
‘For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win – and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country.’
“There. He said it. It’s about transforming the political and philosophical landscape of the country.”
“Josh Marshall's comments on this sentence of Wehner's were so good that I'd like to quote them at length:”
‘In other words, this isn't about the fiscal soundness of Social Security or the babyboomers moving toward retirement or anything else. As Wehner himself says, this is the best chance the opponents of Social Security have had in six decades of trying to phase-out the program.
And this allows us to see the whole matter clearly. Social Security has been around for seventy years. How many people do you know who really don't like Social Security? Back when I was younger I'd go spend part of my summer at the subsidized retirement community where my grandparents lived. And I don't remember many people who lived there bad-mouthing Social Security. And those folks had lived under the program for pretty much all of their adults lives.
Or, the more relevant question, how about people today? How many people think Social Security is a bad thing? A program that never should have existed? I'm not saying how many worry that the program may not be there when they retire. How many people don't even like the whole concept?
I think they're in a distinct minority.
So now you can see from memos emerging from the White House itself that this isn't about "saving" Social Security. If it were, what would that sentence mean — ("For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win")? The first time in six decades they can save it?
Clearly, this isn't about "saving" Social Security. It is a battle to end Social Security and replace with something that Wehner clearly understands is very different, indeed the antithesis of Social Security.
This entire debate is about ideology — between people who believe in the benefits Social Security has brought America in the last three-quarters of a century and those who think it was a bad idea from the start. There is an honest debate to have on this point, a values debate. Only, the White House understands that the belief that Social Security was always a bad program isn't widely shared by Americans. So they have to wrap their effort in a package of lies, harnessing Americans' desire to save Social Security in their own effort to destroy it.’
[above quote from Jonathan – Social Security Part 5 — Motives Jan. 2005]
Pretty serious stuff, and I actually agree with it, up to a certain point. Much of the debate from the current administration is of a political nature – and is about idealogy.
However, I’m not convinced that the ideology is necessarily “between people who believe in the benefits Social Security has brought America in the last three-quarters of a century and those who think it was a bad idea from the start.”
My opinion is that the present administration needs something, almost anything, to hang its hat on, especially since Iraq hasn’t been going according to their stated script, although what is stated and what is truly desired may very well be two different things. But that’s another story for another time.
The focus on the social security debate, however, and the administration’s ideas regarding privatization, are for two obvious reasons:
- The first is simply as a diversion to try to take the public’s attention away from the mess in Iraq, and to make it appear that something – anything, is being done to help the economy.
- The second is that privatization of social security would give a tremendous boost to the stock market, which is skating on thin ice, and is in the first stage of a major secular bear market. If the market goes, Bush goes with it. And he knows it.
Nothing like a quick fix or injection of heroin to make the junky feel “high” for a short period of time, until another dose is required, which if not administered promptly, will bring on violent withdrawal symptoms.
Watch the yield spreads, they will be the first precursor or symptoms of the fever to follow.
Beware of the unwinding of the carry trades, as that will really cause the fever to spike, hopefully the patient will not die.
So, I agree that the administration’s reasons for their posturing on the privatization of social security are very politically motivated, and do indeed involve the issues of ideology.
However, I don’t find that either privatization or politics, or any ideology being used or manipulated by such politics, as being the critical issue(s) that determine the soundness and viability of social security.
0 comments:
Post a Comment