In selling the idea that there's a crisis, Bush has a
lot of powerful words on his side: "choice," "freedom," "ownership
society." What words do you have to counter his sales
job?
Scam. Three-card monte. I've been thinking a lot about flying
pigs. The privateers are claiming that you can have something for
nothing. They're basically saying, "Let's assume that pigs can
fly." And when you say, "You know, it's not good to assume that
pigs can fly," they respond by saying, "What's wrong with you?
Don't you understand the enormous advantage of flying pigs?"
The only reason they talk about how wonderful an ownership society would be is because we managed to win the battle over the word privatization. The Cato Institute — which is the intellectual headquarters for all this stuff — founded something in 1995 called the Project on Social Security Privatization. But focus groups don't like that word, so in 2002 they changed the name to the Project on Social Security Choice. They didn't announce a name change — they just went back and scrubbed their Web site, so there's no indication that it was ever called "privatization."
If there's no crisis in Social Security, why aren't the
Democrats saying that more clearly and forcefully?
There's a lot of timidity. They're desperately afraid of seeming
like "Oh, well — we have our heads in the sand, and we're not
active." I would like to see them step up to the plate and say that
these claims that we're going to have a crisis sometime in the next
fifteen years is just garbage. Bush is handing them an opportunity
by making this the centerpiece of his agenda. Democrats should
treat privatizing Social Security the way Republicans treated
Clinton's health-care plan — they should say, "This is a
disaster, and we will stand against it." Social Security is simply
not the biggest problem facing the government today.
What is?
If you really want to get scared about something that can happen
between now and 2052, you should talk about Medicare and Medicaid.
The entire system of private health insurance is gradually
collapsing. And as the share of people getting medical insurance
through their employers continues to decline, the number of people
who have to rely on the government for health insurance keeps going
up. At the same time, medical costs keep on rising, because doctors
keep on figuring out new stuff to do — procedures that didn't
exist ten or twenty years ago.
So what needs to be done to shore up
Medicare?
In our system, we have huge administrative costs — which are
mostly driven by insurance companies spending huge amounts of money
trying to avoid covering people. Our health-care costs are eighty
percent higher than those in other advanced countries. The best way
to contain those costs is to go to a single-payer system, one in
which the government insures everyone. That would probably cut the
cost of health care by at least twenty-five percent.
But there's no way that will happen under
Bush.
He actually wants to do the opposite. If he manages to privatize
Social Security, he'll try to privatize Medicare next. He'll try to
strip away guaranteed health care and turn it into some kind of
system of individual health accounts. The right says that what we
need is more choice, more competition. But every piece of evidence
suggests that health care is an area in which privatization
actually raises costs. If they succeed at dismantling both Social
Security and Medicare, then you're pretty much back, on domestic
policy, to the days of Warren Harding — which is exactly
where they want to go.
[From Issue 966 — January 25, 2007]
Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!

- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.