John M. Tomaszewski – 9/8/05

This page was last updated on September 8, 2005.

Social Security push fades; John M. Tomaszewski; Beaver County Times; September 8, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The campaign by Bush to privatize Social Security has gone from today’s media. The campaign was a failure. Bush wanted to get rid of Social Security as we know it and establish a mutual fund with only the name remaining. The Bush administration used Social Security officials to promote the privatization plan.”

[RWC] First, it is not a “privatization” plan. Though individual taxpayers would have the option of choosing from some SSA-approved investments, the Socialist Security taxes remain under the control of the Socialist Security Administration. Second, if the “campaign” ends up a failure, we’ll all lose. Mr. Tomaszewski is mistaken when he alleges, “Bush wanted to get rid of Social Security as we know it and establish a mutual fund with only the name remaining.” This lie has been exposed in many of my critiques. Regarding “The Bush administration used Social Security officials to promote” personal accounts, so what? The SSA reports to President Bush and is supposed to execute his policies within the law.

“Thus part of the campaign to privatize Social Security was using taxpayer monies. Let us not forget that Social Security remains today as the country’s most successful government program.”

[RWC] Mr. Tomaszewski really stepped in it. He alleges “that Social Security remains today as the country’s most successful government program.” His “successful” government program has been insolvent since its inception and it’s projected to go into deficit before 2020 and bankruptcy before 2050. Since SS’s inception, the tax rate has increased often to 6.2 times its original level (12.4% vs. 2%) and the income limit has increased to 30 times its original level ($90,000 vs. $3,000). The income limit increases every year by law and SS remains insolvent.

If Socialist Security is the “country’s most successful government program,” it doesn’t speak well for government programs.