Frank E. Bovalino – 2/7/05

This page was last updated on February 12, 2005.

Bush can’t be trusted; Frank E. Bovalino; Beaver County Times; February 7, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Stabilizing Social Security, what a unique idea, or is it?

“Presidents and Congresses have attempted to stabilize the Social Security program since and probably before Ronald Reagan’s presidency.”

[RWC] “Probably before Ronald Reagan’s presidency?” Is Mr. Bovalino kidding? The SS tax rate increased 7 times up through 1965. The combined SS and Medicare rate increased another 7 times between 1965 and 1981. The max taxed earnings increased 14 times during this same period.

“The attempt to stabilize Social Security from Presidents Reagan to G.W. Bush has resulted in an increase in contributions for workers along with an increase of the eligible age workers can receive Social Security benefits.”

[RWC] By mentioning only Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush by name, Mr. Bovalino wants us believe Republicans are solely responsible for SS tax increases and benefit cuts (increased eligibility age). During President Clinton’s administration, the max taxed earnings increased every year. It was also during this time that the max taxed earnings for Medicare was eliminated.

“An expansion of who received benefits also occurred during this time frame.

“My thought process on this matter is to bring to light the historical trend of government’s attempts to improve social programs, such as Social Security, and what benefits resulted from said intervention.”

[RWC] This might be his “thought process,” but Mr. Bovalino did not “bring to light the historical trend of government’s attempts to improve social programs, such as Social Security, and what benefits resulted from said intervention.” He merely tried to imply Republicans were responsible for tax increases and benefit reductions.

“Presently, future retirees have options being formulated for their benefit by an administration that has compiled the largest budget deficit in history. To compound the problem, this administration continues to increase spending and levy tax-cuts for the wealthy.”

[RWC] The current budget proposal is below the inflation rate and everyone received tax cuts, not just the wealthy. Further, the CBO reported the wealthy actually paid a greater portion of taxes after the cuts than they did before.

Mr. Bovalino may forget, but no administration can mandate Socialist Security changes. All changes require laws written and passed by Congress.

“Keeping this in mind, should the creditability of this administration’s proposal be closely scrutinized? Should the administration’s track-record of fiscal responsibility send up red flags to all working people regardless of age?”

[RWC] Regardless of the administration in office, the answers to these questions should always be “yes.” I suspect Mr. Bovalino has selective memory on this issue, but Democrats were making similar proposals in 1998.

“Yes I am in favor of improving secure funding for Social Security. Secure funding insures future retirees the same benefits as present retirees. This will be needed to offset present day employers’ actions of not funding current pension programs.”

[RWC] Mr. Bovalino writes he is “in favor of improving secure funding for Social Security,” but doesn’t describe what would be acceptable. For example, would he support doubling the SS tax if that were required? None of us want to screw retirees, but we all have our limits as to what measures we find acceptable.

Mr. Bovalino needs to get his facts straight. Providing future retirees the same benefits as present retirees won’t offset the lack of a solid pension, 401(k), or IRA. An “average” earner receives about 42% of his average annual wage over 35 years as an SS benefit. That’s about $18,000/year. The percentage is lower for above average earners and higher for below average earners. I can’t speak for everyone, but I wouldn’t want to retire on only 42% of my wages averaged over 35 years.

“My opinion is the present administration hasn’t the diligence or bipartisan know-how to accomplish this goal.

“The original intention of Social Security has long been lost in the political posturing by past and present government officials. How will the present proposals protect the working class in the near and not-so-near future?”

[RWC] Note that Mr. Bovalino doesn’t describe “the original intention of Social Security.” I suspect he believes it was intended to transfer wealth from high-income earners to low-income earners, but I don’t know. He would be wrong to believe this.

“Working class?” 99.999% of us are in the so-called working class.

“Only time will tell, but one thing I am truly grateful for is that this current administration doesn’t manage my personal finances.”

[RWC] Would Mr. Bovalino be comfortable with any government administration managing his personal finances? If so, that’s a huge difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe government has no business managing personal finances.