John M. Tomaszewski – 3/3/05

This page was last updated on March 5, 2005.

Bush covering for Iraq mistake; John M. Tomaszewski; Beaver County Times; March 3, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Social Security, created in 1935, is a means of assuring income at retirement or disability.

“Medicare, on the other hand, is a federal health insurance program for persons 65 years of age and over.

“Medicare began in 1966. It was first administrated by the Social Security Administration. Since 1977, it has been administered by the Health Care Financing Administration. Medicare costs are met by Social Security contributions, monthly premiums and general revenues.”

[RWC] There are a couple of problems with this paragraph. First, there is no such thing as a Socialist Security “contribution.” SS taxes are confiscated, not contributed. It’s not a contribution when you have no choice.

Second, SS taxes don’t fund Medicare. Medicare has its own 2.9% payroll tax and – unlike Socialist Security – there is no cap on the earnings taxed. For example, if you make $200,000/year, you pay $5,800/year in Medicare tax. If you make $1 million/year, you pay $29,000/year.

“Bush proposes for persons 55 years of age and younger for a portion of their Social Security contributions to be privatized for investment into the stock market. If the Bush plan is enacted, Social Security will have less income for the above existing Social Security retirement and Medicare programs.”

[RWC] I know Mr. Tomaszewski doesn’t want to hear this, but Democrats themselves recommended personal accounts in the late 1990s. Remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s immediate predecessor? While President Bush supports the concept, it wasn’t his idea.

Mr. Tomaszewski also misrepresents personal accounts. First, it would be the worker’s choice. If the worker didn’t want a personal account, he wouldn’t be forced to have one. The taxes he could designate to go into a personal account would continue to go into Socialist Security “classic” as they do now. Second, not all of the investment options would be stocks. There would be a combination of stock funds, bond funds, government security funds, et cetera, just like most 401(k) programs.

“Where will the loss of Social Security contributions of the 55 years and younger age group come from? Will benefits be cut to balance the loss of the above contributions?”

[RWC] Ultimately, the difference will come from general taxes and some amount of benefit cuts. To date, the only benefit cuts discussed have been those to bring cost of living increases in line with the true cost of living.

That said, Mr. Tomaszewski seems to believe nothing needs to be done if we don’t implement personal accounts. Even if we make a mistake and reject allowing workers to choose a personal account, Socialist Security will remain insolvent.

“Bush’s Social Security proposed changes are a camouflage of his terrible mistake - the pre-emptive Iraq War.”

[RWC] This last paragraph is based on Mr. Tomaszewski’s opinion that the Iraq War was/is a “terrible mistake.”

If this is the case, perhaps Mr. Tomaszewski can explain why President Bush commissioned the bipartisan committee to study Socialist Security on May 2, 2001, nearly two years before we attacked Iraq. The commission issued its report in December 2001 and included a recommendation for personal accounts. Further, Socialist Security reform was one of President Bush’s 2000 campaign issues. Does Mr. Tomaszewski want us to believe President Bush knew in 2000 that we’d attack Iraq in 2003?