| Number 20 | January 26, 1999 |
|
This Week: |
|
Greetings, You did not miss anything. Although Nygaard Notes strives to be a weekly publication, I didn't put one out last week. Next week's issue will be the last one until the middle of March (I think) as I will be in Nicaragua for 5 weeks starting on February 7. Much of that time will find me out in the middle of nowhere, at least in terms of computer hardware. So I expect that NN will be on vacation that whole time. We'll see. I hope you all can live without it. ‘Til next week, Nygaard |
|
Back on October 29th, I told you about a wonderful Internet resource called "Reading Between the Lines." This was a weekly feature put out by the Economic Policy Institute and authored by economist Dean Baker, which analyzed the economics reporting in the NY Times and Washington Post. That feature no longer exists. Dean Baker is now doing essentially the same column (and I still highly recommend it) under the auspices of the media group FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). The weekly column is now called "Economic Reporting Review," and can be found at: http://www.fair.org/ Even if you are not interested in "economics," per se, if you like Nygaard Notes you'll probably find this short column interesting. It's in plain language, and will help you understand the world a little better. It's fun to read. |
|
Last week, President Clinton once again made Social Security a major focus of his state of the Union address. He did the same thing last year with his famous slogan "Save Social Security First!" I have pointed out in various places how unfortunate is this choice of words, since Social Security doesn't need to be "saved" in any reasonable sense of the word. In fact, it's in less of a "crisis" than almost any other government program that's ever existed. Social Security is fully funded for at least the next 33 years, probably longer, and no other government program that I know of even has a budget that goes anywhere near 33 years into the future. Once again, in the current discussion, the word "save" in regard to Social Security should be translated as "attack." In order to make sense of what the President said about Social Security last Tuesday, it's useful to look at
What the President Did Not Say In reverse order, then, what did the President not say in his address? First of all, neither he nor any other elected official ever even hints at the idea that we may want to expand or improve the program. He only talks about "saving" it, and saving it at a reduced level, at that. The President could have used his speech to point out how embarrassing it is that the Social Security system in the United States is so meager - dare I say stingy? - in comparison with most other wealthy countries. Many countries include in their systems a maternity benefit, a family allowance, and universal health care, as well as national insurance against unemployment and workplace injury. I am thinking of countries like New Zealand, Germany, France, and the Scandinavian countries, among others, none of which is as wealthy as our own. In a different political culture, this would be a national embarrassment, and would engender loud and sustained calls for expansion and improvement of the program. But not in the United States of the 1990s. (Note: I am fully aware that this particular President may be incapable of experiencing embarrassment, but he does have speech writers, after all.) What else did the President not say? He did not mention the program's provision of Disability Insurance and Survivor's Insurance, despite the fact that 1 in 3 Social Security recipients are receiving benefits under these two parts of the program. As has become the norm in the current debate, the President spoke of Social Security as if it were nothing but a retirement program. This may be due to the fact that, while almost everyone expects or hopes to retire, almost no one expects or hopes to die prematurely or become disabled before their working days are over. Very few of us expect these things, so very few of us plan for them. That's why these two parts of Social Security are so important, and that's why Social Security provides more life insurance than all private insurers combined. Whatever the reason for the failure to talk about the Disability and Survivors components of the Social Security system, the denial is dangerous. When "reform" proposals plan for or rely on reductions in disability or survivors benefits in the name of "saving" the system, few people cry out in alarm, since their denial allows them to say "That doesn't apply to me." Basic compassion should dictate that many would speak out regardless, but it seems in today's political discourse that expressing compassion for anyone other than one's self is quite unfashionable. Other things are fashionable right now, and they are not things to be proud of. So, the President did not talk about improving our system to provide real security for Americans, and he didn't talk about disability or survivors insurance. Here's a list of other ideas worth considering that the President failed to mention: Mandatory and portable employer-funded pensions for all full-time workers; raising the cap on taxable wages; mandating a minimum benefit sufficient to lift all recipients out of poverty; shifting the funding of Social Security away from regressive payroll taxes and toward progressive income taxes; exempting wages at the low end of the wage scale from Social Security taxes; and let us not forget national health care. These are ideas worth talking about, and the President should be held accountable for keeping them off the agenda. Now that we have examined the President's "non-agenda," it's time to look at what he said he opposes and what he said he supports. All that (and more!) coming up next week in Nygaard Notes Number 21. |