Post Opposes Social Security Privatization
After endorsing George W. Bush for president, the Denver Post's editorial page has decided to oppose Bush's signature second term initiative: the partial privatization of Social Security.
When you read it carefully, you will see that the "advocates of radical reform" that the Post criticizes for "making up they own math" include the president himself.
U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard also gets criticized for telling a Greeley audience that the government would default on its Social Security trust fund obligation when the plan stops running a surplus in 2018:
Allard's staff said the figures came from the Congressional Budget Office, but a CBO report actually portrays a different and subtler scenario. The CBO did in fact note the 2018 date, but it also says Social Security has enough income and reserves to pay all current benefits until 2052. After that, the system could still pay 80 percent of the now-promised benefits. Thus, Social Security likely would be in the black until mid-century, even if Congress does nothing.This editorial would be expected from a newspaper that opposed Bush in the last election, not from the Post. Either it is an early case of buyer's remorse, or the Post editorial board is so divided that the paper will come out in support of Bush on some issues and against him on others in a hard to predict fashion. If it is the latter, it could be a long four years for the Post's editorialists.
Comments
Submitted by John (not verified) on Tue, 2005-01-25 21:19.
Jmaes: Not tax, but invest. Most economists believe increased government spending helps the economy. We have done this countless times over the years starting with FDR and many times more recently. Many economists have won Noble Peace Prizes with such dissertations. It is the idea of the broken window. A window breaks and helps the economy greatly by creating much economic activity. In the same way economists believe a war helps get an economy moving. One prize winner said there is no wiser use of the dollar than one spent by the government. All Liberals know such obvious wisdom as true. Are you a Noble Peace Prize winner? These people have been paid millions for coming up with such brilliant ideas.
Submitted by James C. Hess (not verified) on Tue, 2005-01-25 18:45.
RE: The previous post: In other words: Tax people to prosperity?
That's idiotic and unrealistic.
Submitted by John (not verified) on Tue, 2005-01-25 18:41.
Reducing spending is definitely not an option to helping Social Security down the road. The government on all levels will need ever greater amounts of money to finance ever growing programs and commitments to our needy. We cannot afford to reduce spending, but must vastly increase it as we have been doing the last 4 years on all levels of government- state, local, and federal. Only by large spending investments can the government get the economy pumped up again. Unfortunately we now have a conservative Congress and President so we must expect cuts in the increases in the future. Under Bush the nondiscretionary spending only grew at a miserly 8% a year. We need to vastly increase that level of spending to fund the educational and healthcare needs of the people.
Submitted by James C. Hess (not verified) on Wed, 2005-01-26 18:27.
In other words: The government knows best.
No, it does NOT know best.
As to the Nobel Prize and those supposedly honored by it: You mean like Jimmy Carter, whose home in Plains, GA. has a massive black and white sign in front of it reading: KEEP MOVING. THIS MEANS YOU.
That sort of prize winner?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather take MY money and do what is best for me.
By the way: If people were allowed to keep more of THEIR money they might just advertise in YOUR magazine. Or, better yet, they might just buy a copy of it.
