< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://davejustus.com/" >

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Paul Krugman: Social Security spells end of the Welfare State

The New York Times > Opinion:

Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. 'Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state,' declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. 'If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.' By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932. Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next. The attempt to 'jab a spear' through Social Security complements the strategy of 'starve the beast,' long advocated by right-wing intellectuals: cut taxes, then use the resulting deficits as an excuse for cuts in social spending. The spearing doesn't seem to be going too well at the moment, but the starving was on full display in the budget released yesterday.
I wish I thought Krugman was correct here. I don't like the welfare state and the entitlement culture, but I don't think that Bush is aiming at dismantling such things. Indeed, given the Prescription Drug benefit, it seems hard to me to make that argument stick.

2 Comments:

Blogger MacBoar said...

I saw Paul on Hardball last night and I'd swear Paul is a hard core Socialists. He places Clinton on a pedestal and thinks Bush is the anti-Christ therefore I can never take what he says serious.

If the Big Three (SS, Medicare and Medicaid) were used as intended, I'd have no problem. Working in the healthcare industry, I see a need for medical coverage. After all, we can't deny service otherwise we have to place a monetary value on human life with a cut off value for support. Do we say under 40, you can have treatment valued at $250,000. But over 60, since you've lived a long life, you can have only $50,000... Don't think we can do that.

SS should have a threshold. If you are 65 and earn over, I don't know let's just say $100,000, you should forego SS and deduct it from your taxes. If you don't need it, for the better of your neighbors, let those who do need it, have it.

However, we should do away with the allottment of special benefits using SS, that's what insurance (aka legalized loan sharking, but that's another story) is for. SS should not be given to dependents. Now, if we had the personal account, then yes, since the value of the account could be tied to performance (ie. decisions).

2/08/2005 07:18:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

I don't disagree with you analysis of Krugman. I try to read things for all sorts of perspectives though.

In regards to the various programs you mentioned, I think that Republicans, for the most part, want this sort of program for the poor, but not for the middle class.

Democrats want it for the poor and for the middle class, perhaps even more for the middle class than the poor.

2/09/2005 09:03:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home