In the Agora: "The" Problem

« Another blog victory | Main | The takings clause »

February 23, 2005

"The" Problem

Continuing on the theme of non-topical posts, let's resurrect OASDI reform for a quick point. As the various ideas for "fixing" OASDI wax and wane, we should be wary of how they are evaluated. As Victor at the Dead Parrot Society notes, there's no such thing as the social security problem. There are, as he lays out, four or five relevant questions for reform proposals:

1) Does the plan result in system "solvency"?
2) Is the plan intergenerationally fair?
3) What is the impact on future budgets?
3a) Will it reduce future outlays?
4) Is there an impact on national savings?

I think debate over these problems has been hampered by how it was introduced by President Bush, who focused almost exclusively on the first problem and continues to use it to draw the public's attention. For future debate, I agree with Victor that, "keeping these issues in mind can help communication and help frame a solution. Or solutions, plural."

Posted by Zach Wendling at February 23, 2005 09:39 AM

Comments

While Bush may have focused exclusively on the question of solvency, do note that the pseudo-privatized accounts he proposes will not help the system achieve solvency, a fact the administration itself acknowledges.

Also, question two, "Is the plan intergenerationally fair?" is really a poor way of assessing the problem. The very system that we are now proposing to save represents the single biggest act of intergenerational unfairness ever achieved in the United States. One generation--the first under the plan--reaped an enormous benefit. Now it's just a question of which generation is going to pay the price when the system collapses, which is inevitable sooner or later.

Posted by: Jason Kuznicki at February 23, 2005 10:02 AM | permalink

Thing is, it's not an accident that Pres. Bush has tried to frame everything in terms of the solvency issue. That issue is the only one that has any chance of creating a political environment that would allow for the kind of radical overhaul that the current GOP leadership wants. They need a crisis, and all the other items either involve no crisis per se (like #2), or (like #3) involve a kind of crisis that is just a sub-crisis in the overall hugemongous crisis that is the budget fiasco, and thus which would not motivate the vast expenses involved in moving to private accounts.

Posted by: philosopher at February 23, 2005 12:14 PM | permalink

Bush only focused on the "solvency" issue to the degree that the administration thought it could lever it to generate a crisis as governance by permacrisis is the only way this administration understands power.

But he did not focus on the "fix" part of the solvency issue. Specifically, none of the proposals put forth so far by the administration (save some mumbling about reducing benefits, which is politically untenable) address the solvency issue. In fact, they worsen it.

In short:

1) Generate Fear, Uncertainty, and Denial through the assertion of a massive looming "crisis"
2) While the public is stunned, put through a proposal that does not address that crisis, by which I mean does not fix the crisis, but actually deepens it.

That's not "focusing" on solvency, in my book.

greg

Posted by: Gregory Travis at February 24, 2005 09:14 AM | permalink