Fuzzy Math In Galveston
Fuzzy Math In Galveston
President Bush in Galveston County today, where workers voted to privatize their retirement accounts in 1981:
Just — let me just give you a sense for the difference between what a worker gets here in Galveston and then a worker would get out of Social Security. If you get a 3.75 percent return, like they guarantee here in Galveston, on your money, and you’re a person working 37 years, making about $25,000 a year, you’d receive $1,250 a month from the alternate plan now available for workers here — as opposed to $669 from Social Security. Think about that. That’s a difference between a better rate of return on your money over a 37-year period.
In fact, the Social Security Administration did an analysis of the Galveston plan in 1999. The report showed well-paid workers with no kids did slightly better in the short run under the plan. As for everyone else:
Social Security tends to offer higher initial benefits than the Galveston Plan to workers with lower earnings and/or families with dependents who qualify for Social Security benefits. Although many of Galveston’s initial benefits are higher than Social Security’s, they are not indexed to inflation and lose value relative to Social Security’s over time.
The same year, the Government Accountability Office compared the two plans, coming to a similar conclusion:
In general, low-wage workers and, to a lesser extent, median-wage workers would fare better under Social Security. High-wage earners can generally expect to do better under the Alternate Plans, although if spousal benefits are included, even the high-wage workers could eventually receive higher benefits from Social Security.
Hmmmm, makes you wonder which report President Bush was quoting.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
He was quoting the coloring book that Cheney gave him.
April 26th, 2005 at 5:01 pmSo there’s people who think S.S. is good and those that think it is bad. Here’s a thought: people from the first group can stay in the program, and those in the second group can leave the program.
If you leave the program, you give up any future benefit but you get a refund of the money you put in, minus any benefits that you already received.
This would make both sides happy.
April 26th, 2005 at 5:13 pmSo, Tony, are you now or were you ever covered by a group health insurance plan?
April 26th, 2005 at 5:19 pmAnd of the group that opts out, when they get old and find they’re broke, we just let them starve, point and laugh and say I told you so?
There’s something wrong with that plan…
April 26th, 2005 at 5:49 pmThe Bush administration talks about “the” rate of return on Social Security, when in reality the rates of return vary based on your income, your dependents, etc. The program is “progressive” in that it provides a better return to lower income workers than to higher income workers. The progressive nature of the program is what drives the “every man for himself” Republicans crazy.
If you ever hear talk about “the”rate of return on Social Security, don’t let them get away with it–point out the reality and the progressive nature of the program.
April 26th, 2005 at 9:42 pmIf this was an ad-lib (which is a horror for W’s handlers) then it was not a quote, it was made up spew from a number of misunderstood facts. If not an ad-lib then it was a lie dreamed up by Rove which was calculated to fool an average education level of the 5th grade.
April 26th, 2005 at 11:07 pmI’d like to see someone make an interactive web-app to let people play with social security. (change the retirement age, tax rate, cap, etc)
Here is a version that let’s you do a few predefined tweaks. It’s a good start… and the facts speak for themselves. If everybody played with this, they would be much more informed!
http://www.moralpolitics.org/community/Discuss/SocialSecurity/209.aspx
April 27th, 2005 at 1:41 amThe sad fact is, and it is a FACT, is that Bush and his cronies and their circle of friends never ponder about what it would be like to dwell in poverty or hover near that station. They want to privatize everything, thereby simultaneously strengthening and widening the gap between rich and poor. To borrow a line from the Communists, they are Capitalist Pigs to the very end.
April 27th, 2005 at 7:47 amEmart- Yes, I have been covered by a group health insurance plan. But was I *FORCED* to participate? No. That’s my problem with S.S. It violates individual liberty.
April 27th, 2005 at 8:49 amtom-The group that opts for freedom knows the risks. Yes, they could loose all their retirement money, but at least they are free to control their own property. In the case of retirement, they could put the money in a passbook savings account at the local bank and do better than they would in S.S.
April 27th, 2005 at 8:58 amVincent M. (Mao?) Snyder- I would argue that communism is more “piggy” than capitalism. Communism is where the majority decides to forcibly take (steal) property from the minority to redistribute among itself. Oink Oink!!!
April 27th, 2005 at 9:02 amLee Russ- While “every man for himself” is not a flawless system, it is better than forcibly taking property from one person to give to another person.
April 27th, 2005 at 9:14 amToday’s Republicans are living on credit:
1) Running-up huge deficits that will have to be paid by our children and their children and so on…
2) Cutting taxes irresponsibly to increase #1 and to reduce or eliminate social programs used by many people who need those services
3) Making foreign policy decisions with their dicks – causing the rest of the world to redefine their definition of American
4) …I’m sure there are plenty more examples
So, what’s the use of all this? Could it be pandering? I’m sure that Bush doesn’t think he’ll be around too far into the future to answer for his irresponsibility. Other Republicans as well – they’re not going to live forever. Are they buying your vote with their shiny-happy version of a future that couldn’t possibly happen? Maybe.
Let’s say that Bush was successful in convincing America that he was right about private accounts. Let’s also say that 50 years from now it is a MAJOR fiasco – the elderly poor are forced into eating garbage to survive. Do you think that any voter will trust a Republican to fix their own problem? Today’s Republicans are borrowing against tomorrow’s votes to gain political gain today.
So, meanwhile, the Republicans biggest efforts are spent trying to find the next greatest message to float-out to the voting public. The poor will continue getting the shit-end of the stick (what else is new?) until the country hits rock-bottom. Then, when we’re ALL living paycheck to paycheck, we won’t have to worry about maximizing our investment returns or finding the latest taxâ€â€shelter or telling people what they can or can not do with their bodies. We can think seriously about governing and the kind of country in which we want to live.
Until then, we’re left with the Republican party of today. My favorite line from the movie Christine: “You can’t polish a turd.�
April 27th, 2005 at 9:25 amTony, why don’t you take your marbles, (what few you have left), and leave if you don’t like it here. It’s still a free country and you are free to leave. We won’t miss you, promise. I suggest Mexico. No nationalized health care there. Canada is obviously out of the question, and I doubt they want you any more than we do.
April 27th, 2005 at 9:31 amWe’ve all known about this Galveston experiment for some time. It is astonishing that Bush would not even do his homework on it, his contempt for Americans is so great.
April 27th, 2005 at 9:45 amThe “taxation is theft” people, many of whom have Ph.D.s and really should know better, remind me of the guy who comes to a poker game, plays on credit, and decides to quit the game while he is ahead, but hangs out to drink the booze, eat the food, and take in the ambience, and they try to slip out before having to pay the bank back.
April 27th, 2005 at 9:53 amTony:
You and I have already had this discussion elsewhere on Think Progress.
The discussion here is not whether Social Security is a good idea or a legitimate idea; it’s examining the details of the program as it exists and as people propose to change it. Do you really think that you add anything by stating over and over that you disagree with the fundamental approach?
April 27th, 2005 at 10:22 amThe “taxation is theft” argument is so poor, it amazes me that so many educated people espouse it and regurgitate it. These people remind me of the guy who comes to a poker game, plays on credit, wins a few hands and quits while ahead, but hangs out to drink the booze, eat the food and take in the ambience. Then tries to sneak out without paying back the bank. You come to a poker game, you ante up. This ain’t the only game in town. Tony should try them south of the border.
April 27th, 2005 at 10:28 amSJS- I’ll stay in the US and fight to protect individual freedom from greedy redistributionists.
April 27th, 2005 at 11:59 amLee, I think the root of the problems and solutions with the current S.S. system is the loss of freedom. The best plan should allow individuals control of their own money instead of stealing it from them.
April 27th, 2005 at 12:03 pmTony, you’ll stay and get upset when your taxes are raised to pay for this spending binge by the party of fiscal conservatism. I’d quit while I was ahead.
April 27th, 2005 at 12:29 pmSJS- I’m not a GOP bootlicker…I’m as angry as you about budget deficits. If we cut unconstitutional spending, we can eliminate the deficit.
April 27th, 2005 at 12:46 pmwulge- How so?
April 27th, 2005 at 12:46 pmThis “forcible” redistribution is simply a more efficient extension of charity, a universal safety net. Charity is mandated by Christ. Is Christ a tyrant?
April 27th, 2005 at 12:48 pmAnd Christ never said, “They knew the risks.”
No, we would be mandated by religion and human decency to help those who squandered their private accounts.
April 27th, 2005 at 12:49 pmtom-Forcible redistribution is different from charity. Charity is a voluntary act. Would Christ have advocated stealing from one person to give to another? No, he advocated that an individual *make the choice themselves* to give up their possesions in order to help the less fortunate.
April 27th, 2005 at 2:24 pmwulge-
Spending money on defense of life and liberty is authorized by the Constitution. Now it IS open for debate how much should be spent, but any amount is Constitutional.
If you want income redistribution, start a movement to amend the Constititution.
And where is the oil we’ve gained from war? Prices have gone up, not down. And where is the “profit” from war? Show me on the 2005 budget where it is listed.
Government handouts are theft. To support the poor, I support voluntary charity.
April 27th, 2005 at 2:36 pmTony, we call it democracy. Americans voted to enact charity through taxes. That is voluntary. At least as voluntary as submitting to Bush’s judicial nominees or obeying any law of this country. You can always move to Saudi Arabia where you don’t pay taxes.
You could just as easily argue that taxes in defense of liberty is theft, and support voluntary military donations.
If you want to argue that the military is constitutional in the defense of liberty, I would refer you to the phrase “Promote the general welfare.” It is legal, and moral, and just.
April 27th, 2005 at 5:25 pmOnce again, Tony, you respond dishonestly to an honest question, as is your want. I nowhere suggested income redistribution, but you shamelessly toss it in to divert commentary away from the main point, which is the hundreds of billions spent each year under the guise of defense to maintain our empire overseas. As to profits, you know perfectly well who is raking in all those taxpayer dollars. One needs only to look at the earnings reports of big oil or the companies holding contracts for work in Iraq. And of course their shareholders. As to voluntary charity, it’s a damn fine idea. With the current administration fixated on removing all programs aimed at helping those most at need in our country, it’s about the only way the poor sods are going to have a shot at surviving. It occurs to me, though, that with all your endless talk about taxpayer dollars being frittered away on “handouts”, there are likely very few dollars finding their way from your wallet into those voluntary charities. Based on your comments, it just seems so out of character.
April 27th, 2005 at 6:16 pmRe #28
Excellent commentary, Tom.
April 27th, 2005 at 6:19 pmtom-Majority vote does not grant legitimacy to an action. The median income is $43,000. If everyone making $44,000 or less voted to redistribute all income above that level among themselves, would that be OK in your opinion? That would increase the general welfare, according to the majority. What if the majority decided ban cigarattes completely? Or candy? Majority rule is tyranny if it doesn’t respect individual rights.
The constitution was set up to protect the basic rights of citizens-life and liberty. Everything else was left to the states. Now a super-majority can change the Constitution, which helps to protect the minority to a greater extent than a pure democracy. So it’s still possible that a supermajority could re-enact slavery, but to a much smaller degree.
Citizens have a right to defend themselves against harm. They also have a right to delegate to government. So they authorized the government to maintain a military. Constrastly, citizens don’t have a right to take someone else’s money to pay for their own health care/retirement. So that cannot be delegated to government.
The general welfare clause, as written by Madison and company, refers to the welfare of the states, not the citizens. See here for more info on this. Jefferson said:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
Madison said:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators”
They make sense, for why have a list of authorized powers in Article I, Section 8 if general welfare meant anything the majority wanted? Were the other powers merely suggestions? Madison and Jefferson spoke harshly of pure democracy, since they knew it didn’t respect individual rights and could become just as tyrannical as a dictatorship or monarchy.
April 28th, 2005 at 10:36 amSo tonys source material in #31 is a commentary on free republic? Anyone got a grain on salt?
April 28th, 2005 at 11:30 amtony you can cut all charity out of the government, all safety nets, and social security and still have a deficit. The only place in the federal budget where we can cut $400 billion a year is the military.
Sounds like you are in favor of income redistribution as long as the recipients of that redistribution are bomb-makers.
Now, see how silly it sounds when I try to sneak socialism into the argument? Don’t kid yourself. If liberals were socialists, California would not be the fifth largest economy in the world, and Kansas would not be dirt poor.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:43 amtom-You are correct, I am in favor of redistribution for Constitutionally authorized purposes. Coining money, running the courts, defense, etc. Social Security and similar programs that simple take a dollar from one person and give it to another are not authorized by the Constitution (see my previous arguement against the general welfare clause).
If there were to be an amendment to the Constitution that allowed S.S., I would say fine it’s legal, but of course I would fight to have that amendment repealed :)
I think you can cut unconstitutional programs like education, HUD, foreign aid, etc. to help fix the deficit. After that, then I agree, we should look at cutting defense, homeland security, etc.
April 28th, 2005 at 1:40 pmElderly Retirement
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm