I Was Told There Would Be No Math

I've got to admit that it took me more than a few weeks to even begin to try and comprehend the current debate our president has incited on the privitization of Social Security. As usual, I simply assumed that because it was his suggestion, it was a bad idea. And now I've read Roger Lowenstein's easy-to-follow, indespensible primer in the Times Magazine a few weeks back as well as Josh Marshall's obsessive play-by-play of the fight on Capitol Hill. And guess what? It's a bad idea.

But I don't have the time or patience to dissect the issues here. Just pick up any paper's op-ed page and you'll get plenty of details (and curiously, few if any sensible arguments in support of the policy-as-proposed). What's interesting is that President Bush seems as confused as anyone.

Now, in case you didn't pick up on it, The White House has conceded that whatever positive benefit of the Bush proposal, it is in no way a cure for what ails Social Security, and another remedy would be needed to forestall a future shortfall--whenever that might arrive. The current plan aims only to raise more money for individuals using private accounts that might earn more money over time than the Treasury bills Social Security currently invests in. The shortfall needs to be dealt with by some form of benefit cuts or tax hikes. It's that simple.

So in response to a question this weekend in Tampa Bay about how his proposal would ensure that Social Security won't run out of money down the road, Bush had this to say (as per a transcript on the White House web site):

Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it. (Laughter.)

Well, at least he's got a firm grip on the subject.