This Week:

Quote of the Week

George W. Is Not "The Problem"

About the "Quote" of the Week

Principles of Social Security Reform

Greetings,

More about Social Security this week. A little more is planned for next week, then maybe another shot the week after that, then on to something else. But what? I've got a list of 15 subjects about which I plan to write in future editions of Nygaard Notes, here in a little yellow notebook on my desk. If any readers have subjects that they would particularly like explored, send me your ideas. Who knows what you will see in the coming weeks?

Some people have suggested that this newsletter could use a "catchy" slogan. I can't really think of anything besides this one: "Nygaard Notes: Reading the Newspaper So You Don't Have To." I don't really think I need a catchy slogan; I just wanted to get that one in the editor's note this week because I think it's funny.

I much appreciate the many letters (and checks!) that have been sent in to the Notes since I came back from my hiatus of earlier this summer. Thank you all! I apologize for being slower than usual in getting back to many of you. That is just how it is this summer – I should be getting back to my usual prompt and businesslike self before too long. Thanks for your patience.

‘Til next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

In a sort of sneak preview, this week's "Quote" of the Week comes from the preface to the draft report of the "President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security." I guess that name could really be the "Quote" of the Week, since the Commission has as one of its guiding principles to literally weaken Social Security. But, for now, I offer the following masterstroke of propaganda, from the third paragraph of the preface to the July 18th draft. Speaking about what they call "public skepticism" towards future benefit payments from Social Security, the co-chairs say:

"The crisis of confidence is real. Many working adults do not believe that they will ever collect retirement benefits from Social Security. Such a failure has never once happened in a program that dates well back into the last century. But Americans tend to be skeptical of government, and this is no bad thing. It would, however, be a terrible thing if the skeptics should turn out to be right this time."

George W. Bush Is Not "The Problem"

George W. Bush is considered by many to be the President of the United States. And, in some technical sense, I suppose he is. I don't believe he was legitimately elected but, still, he is the man in the Oval Office. Many readers seem to wonder why I almost never say anything about him, except in passing (and then mainly to give myself the chance to put the word "President" in quotation marks.)

There are three reasons why I don't discuss George W. very much. One has to do with my upbringing. I was taught not to pick on those who were obviously weaker than I was. It would thus be wrong for me to point out the inconsistencies and illogic in the utterances and policies of this man. Also, it's too easy. So easy, in fact, that all sorts of people in the mainstream media are already doing it. Why should I follow the pack?

The second reason I refrain from talking about Mr. Bush is that his administration is not about ideas, or arguments, or persuasion of any sort. It's about naked power.

In many cases, Mr. Bush and his minions disdain even the attempt at constructing what might be called an "argument," choosing instead to count votes and ram through what they want. In the long run, we can hope this strategy doesn't work too well, but it's worth thinking about why it is working (as well as it is) right now.

The third reason I don't talk about Mr. Bush much is the most important one: If he were not the Prez, someone else just like him would be. So why personalize it? To speak as if this particular president is "the problem" is to imply that if we were just to get rid of him, then we would be in much better shape. That's not the point. The point, as I hope will become clear next week (in the essay to which I refer in the paragraph immediately to the left of this one), is that there are social forces at work in this country that have given rise to George W., and it is not George W. who is "the problem." It's those social forces. Tune in next week.

About the "Quote" of the Week

There are three types of quotations that attain the status of a Nygaard Notes "Quote" of the Week. And a lofty status it is. Let me say a few words about these quotations, some of which seem to be quite controversial, judging by the mail I receive.

Type 1: The Stand-Alone Quotation

The first, and less common, type are the utterances that can be fully understood simply by reading them—I call these "stand-alone" quotations—but which say so much in a few words that they are worth repeating. Included in this group can be quotations the expression of which I find pleasing, such as a U.S. Senate candidate asking "How can there be a surplus when people are homeless?" which I quoted in NN#111. Whether the speaker is being genuine or not is irrelevant; it is concise and well-said, and perhaps it will stick in readers' minds and serve them well in some way or another.

Another kind of stand-alone quotation is the one which very briefly challenges a widely-held belief that just happens to be wrong. For example, in #109 I quoted the Bi-Partisan Working Group on Youth Violence saying that "In the case of youth violence, it is important to note that, statistically speaking, schools are among the safest places for children to be." These are the quotations that, when I first see them, my response is to raise my eyebrows and say, "Really?" I often end up researching these and expanding on them in the pages of the Notes.

A third type of stand-alone quotation is the one that simply means a lot to me and that I want people to read and think about. In NN #112 I quoted Euro-American anti-racist organizer Anne Braden as saying, "I made up my mind...that I would never spend another minute of my life building something that was all or mostly white because it's not going to change anything. It is a waste of time."

Type 2: The Ironic Quotation

The second type of quotation that becomes a QOTW meets a more subtle criterion. These are the quotations that were said with the apparent intention of communicating one thing, but that I think unintentionally (and often unconsciously) communicate a quite different thing. In other words, they are ironic. When George W. Bush was campaigning to be President, for example, he said, "I saw the report that children in Texas are going hungry. Where? You'd think the governor would have heard if there were pockets of hunger in Texas." (NN#53) I assume he was attempting to challenge the fact that there might be hunger in Texas, but the report to which he referred seemed quite credible to me, so I thought it inadvertently illustrated his ignorance of a fact about which a would-be president should be well aware. That illustration was, I am certain, not his intent.

When an ironic quotation is in need of a fact or two to bring into focus the irony, I sometimes will supply that fact, as I did with a quote from the same George W. Bush after he had assumed his current office: "Our intention is to make sure that the world is as peaceful as possible." (NN#107) I pointed out that he was attempting to explain what the Pentagon called "the biggest blow against Saddam Hussein's military in more than two years." One has to work a little harder to see the irony here, but see it one can, with a little help.

Sometimes I offer readers a quotation the implications of which I consider exceptionally profound and complex, hoping that my readers will simply ponder the meaning of it. Such was the case in NN #57, when I quoted then-President Bill Clinton as saying at a global conference of wealthy nations, "In order to include the developing world in the benefits of globalization, the well-off have to make some adjustments." Profound? Yes. Complex? Yes, when one considers that he was saying this at the World Economic Forum to other "elites" (as the newspaper called them) and that he was at the time the elected leader of the country that would have to make by far the greatest "adjustments" of any country in the world if we were to see any significant "benefits" for poor countries.

The irony of this last quote was (I imagine inadvertently?) underlined by the newspaper's choice of wording for the headline: "Clinton Implores Elite Not to Overlook Poor." This was almost too much for me.

There is yet a third criterion, the meeting of which elevates an otherwise uninteresting quotation to the status of a Nygaard Notes "Quote" of the Week. I include these quotations in order to reinforce a strange and important message. I will attempt to articulate that strange and important message in next week's Nygaard Notes.

Principles of Social Security Reform

Now that Social Security "reform" is big in the news again, it is important to know what all the fuss is about. As I said last week, I well understand why many people find this subject as boring as watching paint dry. I suggest that this is so because, as is the case with so many Important Issues, we rarely get the opportunity to talk about the values and principles that matter to us. Instead, we are subjected to the jabbering of powerful people who have already decided the essential points, leaving us to quibble about details. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Social Security. The answer? Focus on the principles and values that matter to us. And that is my intention this week.

Fortunately, we have three very different sets of principles to compare and contrast when thinking about Social Security, put forward by a) The founders of Social Security, b) George W. Bush, and c) Nygaard Notes. These three sets are very different, and a brief look at each will help Notes readers to participate in—or at least to understand—the debate in a meaningful way.

The Nygaard Notes Principles

Let's start with the Nygaard Notes principles. I will link them to my core values of Solidarity, Compassion, Justice, and Democracy.

If Solidarity is important, then a Social Security system must, in principle, be Universal and Mandatory. In our current Social Security system, everyone pays in when able, and everyone draws out when needed; it's universal. For the good of all, it must also be mandatory, with everyone being required to participate. If people are allowed to voluntarily "opt out" in search of a better deal for themselves, the system loses its character of solidarity, and it goes broke into the bargain. If a Social Security system is not universal and mandatory, it is not "social."

Social Security was designed, in principle, as a system of social insurance. That's the only way to have the "security" that is promised by a system of Social Security. Insurance is a system that guarantees protection for its members; that's the "security" in Social Security, and it should be secure for every person in the society. The principle of Insurance is central to a system that values Justice.

The value of Compassion requires a system to adhere to the principles of Redistribution and Progressivity. In a truly compassionate economic system, all recipients would receive benefits from a Social Security system at a level sufficient to live in dignity, but we're not there yet. To move in this direction within our dramatically non-compassionate economic system, it will be necessary to redistribute a large amount of income. Although our current system does have a progressive benefits schedule (that is, those with greater need receive proportionally higher benefits), the payroll tax upon which it is based is very regressive. I propose that we move toward funding Social Security through progressive taxes on income and wealth, while moving toward a universal flat benefit equal to a living wage. There should be no means test or requirement of previous earnings to receive benefits; all residents should be entitled to live in dignity.

Placing a value on Democracy dictates that a system designed to provide security for its members should, in principle, be Public. Since it is the "free market" that has produced the gross income inequality that we see in the United States, we can hardly expect a market-based system of "Social Security" to solve that problem. Only a program conceived of and run by a democratic, publicly-accountable body (government, as an imperfect example, or workers' councils, or some other broad-based group of citizens) has any chance to reflect the values of the majority of the population, values that I believe include the three mentioned above.

The Social Security Principles

The Nine Guiding Principles of Social Security, as put forth by the Social Security Administration, are not radically different from my own. Indeed, they include some of the same principles that are on the Nygaard list, stating that the system must be universal, redistributive, compulsory, and equally available to all (that is, not only for poor people, or "means-tested"). The other five principles, with which I am in varying degrees of agreement or disagreement, are that Social Security be an Earned Right, that it be Wage-Related, that it be Contributory and Self-Financed, that it be Wage-Indexed, and that it be Inflation-Protected. (Actually, I don't think all of these are even "principles," per se, but let's leave that alone for now.) For more explanation of these nine principles, see Nygaard Notes #77 and #78, "The Principles of Social Security, Parts I and II")

Next week I'll talk about the third set of principles put forward to guide the discussion on reforming Social Security, those put forward by George W. Bush when he established the "President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security" this past May.