But the great Karen Tumulty writes for Time and reaches hundreds of thousands and influences an order of magnitude more than that, while you are a denizen of the internets, and influence a fraction of that. The truth is what people like Tumulty says it is. And for Tumulty, the truth is what's going to keep her position and paycheck at Time. That means no "unbalanced" criticism, even when it is warranted, and selection from a fairly narrow choice of scripts, which must always include praise at least in proportion to damnation, particularly when it comes to Republicans. Even when you have to invent it.

Tumulty, by the way, has been blowing her own horn over this vapid piece at the Swampland, where Time demonstrates the ability of its staff to embarrass themselves in open debates seamlessly transition to emerging media forms.

In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace

The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer

Time magazine won't exist in five years, maybe less.

Complete nonsense.  If I had a dollar for every time someone predicted the death of this or that "old media" I'd be a very rich guy.  Time has a circulation of over 4 million.  It ain't going anywhere.

Another way to look at things is that none of those particular successes were the outgrowth of conservative ideology -- they were bipartisan, pragmatic accomplishments.

Perhaps.  But it is also fair to say that defeating the Soviet Union, reducing tax rates and reducing crime were more of a priority to conservatives in general, even if conservatives can't take the full credit the way they would like to. 

Another point to keep in mind is that today's liberalism is pretty different from liberalism 30 years ago.  Now everyone believes that reducing crime should be a priority.  In the past liberals fought against this, saying that crime had to be addressed by its "root causes", usually a synonym for inaction.

It's the same for conservatives of course. Now they all claim to be be civil rights when 40-50 years ago they fought it tooth and nail.

Greg's assertions imply that the right accomplished all these "big ideas". Social Security has never been privatized and school vouchers are a niche market in some states. How can you say these ideas have failed -- they've never been tried. Even the quasi-socialist country of Sweden realized they were going to have to partially privatize their national pension program (due to the same demographic issues we face) and they already got it done. We can't even get a debate going in this country, because the fear-mongers crank up their PR machine.

Thanks so much for your excellent question, Brook. SS privatization has indeed been tried and failed miserably in Great Britain and Chile, notwithstanding conservative claims to the contrary. By way of mathematics, it could not possibly have accomplished what proponents promised: "strengthening" the existing system, improving rates of return, and enhancing the retirement security of Americans. It is a fraudulent idea.

With respect to school vouchers, Milwaukee has pursued the biggest experiment in the US without any signs of progress (though its supporters blocked testing requirements on the private schools after the program was expanded to make it impossible to reach definitive conclusions). Cleveland's voucher system, which has allowed for test comparison, likewise shows no signs of progress. New major government studies show private schools do no better than public ones after adjusting for socioeconomic characteristics of students, undercutting the right's premise that the problem is bureaucracy and unions. The problem is concentrated poverty.

The right's ideas are proving to be bankrupt, one after the other. -- Greg

4%, wow.

By the way, before taking the office poll, take care to provide correct facts to office mates.

Number one, FICA returns cannot be easily compare to an annuity. For starters, equity index annuity with minimum after-inflation return of 1% (or less?) is not easily comparable with annuity that has payments rising with inflation.

More importantly, FICA redistributes income. The easily (but not widely) understood consequence is that it is a "lousy deal" for people close to the upper limit of the contributions. The less easily understood consequence is that these very people are most threatened by "reform", because after protecting the payouts to widows, orphans and low income people, and taking some money out of the system, the books will be balanced by savaging payouts to the upper brackets.

The proposed reform was a gigantic bait and switch (hey, you guys are tired of insufficient returns? Here --- we cut the return in half, but we let you invest a quarter of contributions the way you see fit if you will use politically connected fund managers).

So this conservative idea had the buoyancy of lead weights.

I don't really see 'Conservative' successes?

What, disastrous bungling in Iran Contra?

Giant mounds of mass graves and torture victims in Central America?

Reagan began the deindustrialization of America, a process winding its way to inevitable conclusion.

He produced gigantic deficits that Americans are still paying for today. The short lived period of financial stability under Clinton did little more than dent his gigantic debt.

Victory over the Soviet Union. Jesus Christ, what utter delusions. The Politburo aged to death, Reagan presided over a bunch of sick terrified old men, and everyone was shocked when a new generation of leadership 30 years younger decided junk the cold war and go home.

The 'victories' of the right amount to nothing more than hype and self promotion. It's cotton candy and snake oil.

SeeDee

Two thumbs-up for Valdron's show (of facts) in his post...

I'm always amazed that BradtheDad and his fellow idealogues try to portray 'the Gipper' as the ultimate Conservative while ignoring the tripling of the National debt during his terms...some conservatism, huh?

Spending some $8-BILLIONS per obsolete battleship as part of his 're-armament' programs is a pretty fair example of the stupidity peddled as 'wisdom' by Reagan-o-philes.

SeeDee

Your hype of the 'privatization of SS', Brook, seems to ignore the fact that SS, as it now operates, is as much an insurance vehicle for the induvudual covered as a future retirement income guarantee.

All the schemes pushing the privatization ideas studiously avoid this aspect, and, of course they also do not want to talk about the costs of fund management in the hands of PRIVATE investment banks.

The public, even young adult wage-earners who spend time really investigating the possibilities, have an innate conviction that privatization (as proposed by Bushco & friends) is mainly a PLUS for the big bond buyers and investment managers.

Brook, There was a debate last in year in Chile between the two candidates for president, both of whom agreed that the country's privatized pension system was failing. There's a great New York Times article describing the exchanges in some detail--maybe someone can provide alink that's not behind the firewall like the one I have--but it's telling. One of those candidates was the brother of Jose Pinero, the former Pinochet finance minister who has been employed for years by Cato to push the idea here. No one in Chile thinks the system is working, and even Cato has stopped talking about it.

By the way, you say "Pelosi has never heard of an equity-indexed annuity with a guaranteed minimum annual return (usually 4%)." With good reason. In the private investment market today, there are no annuities that guarantee a payment of any premium above a future inflation rate. They simply don't exist. Why? Because they would be so high risk as to be unprofitable.

How about this: link to any document or publication that you think provides information that supports the idea that SS privatization is a good idea, and I'll show you why it's full of shit. Take it one point at a time. Make my night. --Greg

We will give you "reducing taxes" on the rich.  More specifically, the conservative agenda has been to TRANSFER taxes from the rich to the middle class.  And THAT is what the Reagan years did.  Anyone who believes taxes were reduced is confused. 

The INCREASE in PAYROLL taxes paid for the decrease in marginal taxes on the rich.  This was a MASSIVE INCREASE in taxes on the POOR and MIDDLE CLASS.

It is time for the realists to stop letting the Reaganites continue to LIE about reducing taxes. 

okay, now were getting a debate going, and that's what we need. Debate politics and watch Kansas dominate Niagra at the same time -- life is good.

Greg, you're wrong on what annuities are available, but even what is available now wouldn't be suitable for the kind of national plan I'm discussing. They are a good benchmark of what is possible.

First, here's a link to the CBO study done in 99 on various privatization plans. It lays out good, bad, and ugly. There is a lot of ugly in the Chile plan. It has two key flaws: voluntary participation and no regulation of the industry players. Parts of the Chile plan are just stupid. However, you won't find the word disaster used to describe any of the plans used in various countries.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1065&sequence=0

All of them have flaws, and all of them have positive aspects. You can say the same thing for the way Chile/Great Britain/Australia manage their health care or any other major issue. Again, my central point is -- what would work here.

I'm working from the premise that the existing system is not sustainable in a world where the younger generation will probably have lifespans of 90 years old or more. That's how fast medical technology is advancing. Doing nothing is NOT an option and an absolute prescription for disaster.

Right now the taxpayers have 100% of the risks associated with our ageing population. I'm arguing that we spread that risk between public/private. What are the drawbacks to that, and why are these drawbacks more threatening than the current scenario? You can't just "take privatization off the table" without considering the risks vs. rewards and do some serious math. That would be a close-minded position, and you don't strike me as that kind of individual.

Brook, The most fundamental problem with SS privatization in the real world, leaving aside theoretical views about the best way to structure pensions, is that it would cost multiple trillions of dollars to continue payments to those aged 55 and older under the existing system while switching to a private accounts scheme. Even if one thinks that would be desirable, and one shouldn't due to the nature of insurance protections, that obligation requires incurring enormous new debt that wipes out any theoretical investment gains. Conservative economists like Gary Becker and Robert Barro have acknowledged as much. The whole "claw-back" discussion may ring a bell, which basically related to any potential earnings going to paying off the debt, besides which you have to take into account market risk.

The existing system has been enormously successful, the solutions that Reagan signed into law under the recommendations of Alan Greenspan have worked beautifully, and the adjustments required to deal with potential long-term cost increases are relatively minor (Bob Ball's plan of raising the ceiling on wages subject to SS taxes and dedicating a continuation of inheritance taxes to SS, among other tweaks, does the trick).

The SS privatization debate has been driven 100% by ideology, just as the Iraq War was, and just as the major elements of the right's agenda have been. This is not about the real world. -- Greg

"Reagan began the deindustrialization of America, a process winding its way to inevitable conclusion."

I think its more accurate to trace things back a bit further - to the Nixon/Schultz scuttling of the FDR Bretton Woods system. Don't let Carter off the hook; his admin started the whole deregulation frenzy, which Reagan and Bush I only accelerated. Clinton's heart may have been in the right place, but he pushed NAFTA and did little to halt deindustrialization. Of course the Shrub is the worst of all, but the last 40 years or so of Presidents all share the blame. Its a woeful record. It'll take a generation to fix this mess, if we ever get started on the job.

UA

In other words all the risk is assumed by the insurance carrier NOT the employee paying into the plan. These plans have been around since the 30's and they have been proven to be a successful retirement planning instrument.

You are kidding, right? Are you aware that NASD has issued an Investor Alert on Equity-Indexed Annuities? Perhaps your editor was busy that day and missed the announcement.

The guaranteed minimum return for an EIA is typically 90% of the premium paid at a 3% annual interest rate.

Furthermore, these annuities typically are not registered with the SEC, which puts fraud and other problems out of their jurisdiction.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

my position is based on getting a calculator out not ideology. We're going to reach a 1 to 1 ratio of worker/beneficiary on SS sometime this century, and the numbers don't add up on my calculator. Neither do they for Medicare, which is in even worse shape. It's simple math that has nothing to do with politics. It seems to me that privatization accomplishes 3 key goals.

1. Shifting risk from the public to private sector (which helps the taxpayer and government)
2. Increases private investment dramatically (when money is shifted into private accounts that boosts the economy)
3. Gives the FICA contributors a better return on their investment, plus ownership over part of their FICA

I'm not opposed to raising FICA a point or two to keep the existing system solvent, as long as I know I'll be getting a better return on my contribution. Everybody wins.

SeeDee
Oops!...sorry...read '2004' in place of '2994'....fairly obvious typo

Why don't you edit your error before someone responds.  While you are at it, please use the "reply" link when replying, which helps others to know who you are replying to.

Ordinary (perhaps somewhat upper) middle class expects ca. 50% of the retirement income from SS, or less if investments are successful (in IRA, 403 or other private plans). Markets, the last time I have checked, are opened to all Americans.

Thus SS is the "most secure" part of the portfolio, so in the private part you can concentrate on growth. Take that away (as in Bush plan that would half the benefits of top contributors to SS) and you have to diversify with high quality bonds or something. The net effect of the reform could be that lower middle class would invest a bit more in stock market, and the middle-upper would invest much less.

In the meantime, with the rise of medical costs and stagnation of median incomes, people have hard time adjusting their budgets and the personal savings plummetted, well into red zone. Addressing the real problem could be accomplished by reigning in medical inflation (single payer system could and should entail enlightened cost control), reform of personal credit etc. (I would favor restoring consumer protection, including bancruptcy rules to dampen overly aggresive marketing of low quality credit). In other ways, liberal style solution can address the problem, conservative style -- they can rather create new problems.

Just this week the headlines were blaring about a soaring increase in CRIME.

We're in two simultaneous wars, with plotting going on for a third war; we are in the midst of a domestic war as well--to save our Constitutional republic, which has been so very "successful" that most people no longer bother to vote.

We're losing our ability in this country to produce ANYTHING, thanks to Reagan's mantra of privatization (which Clinton also sold, just like a used car salesman) which has been a disaster. These are successes? I mean, WHO in their right mind would call NAFTA a "success?" Oh, yeah, the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Oh, right.

The top tax rate of 35% is great--if you make more than $311,000 a year--but what about the tax rate of the middle class? Doesn't that count? Why didn't Tumulty even mention that? Because she's assuming that Reagan's "trickle down" lies are true. But, in fact, just this week, economic reports show inflation is UP; we're paying on average $2.50 for a gallon of gas these days. The housing bubble has burst; we're headed for a RECESSION, according to most sane economists.

Within the past month, there were stories in major media about severe poverty up by 26% in the past 5 years--the biggest increase in 30 years.

Maybe Tumulty was slyly suggesting that conservativsm has clearly failed by damning with faint praise, because if she intended that paragraph with a straight face, it's "TIME" she be hauled off to the psych ward--she's obviously delusional.

The vast majority of Americans do not think that conservatives have been all that "successful." Perhaps that's why, in November, most Americans voted to get conservatives OUT OF OFFICE.

Just as Jay Carney was shamed into his MEA CULPA this week on the Attorney-Gate Scandal, which he pooh-poohed in the beginning; I think Karen Tumulty owes her own abject apology--to Americans--for her blatant lies, or her public insanity.

I only work with the top three annuity companies in the nation, and they all operate above-board. There is fraud in the industry, just like stocks, bonds, and even real estate.

Bronto1,

Here are more pictures of conservative "success", Browny style, and lest I forget, there's lots of good reading about...

Conservative spread Christian WWJD love successes, "Mecaca", "Faggot", assassinate heads of state style, and

Conservative No Child Left Behind successes, Folye style...

But it has been a while since I have paid attention to those successes. I've been too busy reading about more recent:

Conservative Law and Order successes, DoJ style, and

Conservative National Security successes, out a secret WMD network Plame style, and

And soo much more.

_____________________________________________________________

"I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Eh, you're both wrong.

And, I'm not trying to be a centrist here, because I'm not one.

Conservatives did get a lot of their agenda through. It was not, in all cases, a disaster. a 35% top tax rate, for example, seems reasonable to me, if the top earners actually paid that which, because of loopholes, they don't. Still, leaving the budget aside, 35% is a third of somebody's work for a year. That seems like a reasonable request from those who have been given so much by the society that lets them be high wage earners. It's a percentage that is far short of confiscation and that asks for a reasonable contribution and they're not short changing society by paying it.

That said, yes, a lot of the conservative agenda has been a disaster, especially on social issues and foreign policy.

They are both victims and beneficiaries of their own success. The country, which has long deferred more to their agenda than any other, is not as well off as it could be.

So, they've had their failures and their successes and in 2008 they will see what the country thinks so far. I'm hoping we try some new ideas from the left that haven't been given a fair shot over 30 years. I think that'll happen.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Destor, One annoying aspect of the claim that the top rate of 35% constitutes a conservative success is that it doesn't capture the fact that when the top rate was originally cut from 50 percent to 28 percent in 1986 (the top marginal rate was 33 percent for upper-middle incomers), the rate on capital gains was increased and all kinds of tax shelters and corporate loopholes were cut. That legislation (which was revenue netural, not a cut) was a geniune success because it lived up to its billing of making the tax code simpler, fairer, and more efficient. But to call that a conservative triumph given how many provisions pissed off Republicans misunderstands what happened back then.

Moreover, every last one of Bush's tax changes have made the tax system more complex, inequitable, and less efficient while depleting the Treasury. That might be a "success" for movement conservatives, but it's been disastrous for the country. Conflating the more recent reduction of a few points in the top tax rate, which is actually no accomplishment at all if viewed in the context of the damage to the tax code, with things like the decline in crime and inflation -- as well as the Soviet Union's collapse-- is just plain idiotic. And so is neglecting the reality that those positive outcomes occurred over the course of many years due to all kinds of factors unconnected to the right's ideology. --Greg

Good idea, Luigi. But I suppose I really ought to do some actual research first rather than just mouthing off! It's on my list. Thanks --Greg

Re: Still, leaving the budget aside, 35% is a third of somebody's work for a year.

Not necessarily someone's "work" just someone's income. Upper income people tend to derive a very significant portion of their income from non-work (investment) sources. We should not buy into the propaganda that they make what they do because they are "hard-working". They probably aren't. They're just lucky.

"I'll tell you the whole story about that budget. Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too" -- Bill Clinton Fundraiser at Houston 10/17/1995

Sounds like a conservative success story to me. 

"a stack of bonds backed by a promise to repay".

I think it is not a "promise" but "legal obligation". I also own shares in some closed-end mutual funds that have nothing else in their assets but "stacks of bonds" (and you can bet that those are electronic book entries) of municipal governments, backed by a "promise to repay".

Sometimes the backing is more concrete, but curiously enough, the market gives lower interest to bonds that are simply backed by a "promise" rather than income from some specific source. They call it "general revenue bond".

One can criticise the idea of Trust Fund, but calling it "unprecedented swindle" is waaay out there, man, surely not in this world. After some reading comprehension exercise, it emerges that once the Trust Fund will start getting mone y back from the general budget, the nation will be visited by the calamity in the form of slightly increased taxes.

I guess the doubt over bonds is felt by tax-cut-and-spend conservatives since they hope we never have to pay back the deficit they ran up.

As you point out, a bond is a legal obligation. Fulfilling it enhances the credit of the institution paying down the debt, which is why Hamilton espoused the US taking on the states' revolution debts. In short order the US was able to sell securities to outside investors after proving itself reliable.

We'd better hope securities are dependable--if the US gov defaults, all bets are off. Not even paper currency would be trustworthy. Then corporate securities in US denominations go down the tubes, too.

Well said. Sorry if I misunderstood the complexities involved.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

This is why we have a Congress, See. They would write the rules into a concrete law. In the meantime, this same Congress is taking your Social Security money and spending it on whatever project they approve in their back room meetings, and I'm sure this includes a lot of the Iraq funding. Are you trying to tell me the government is more accountable than a regulated corporation? Nobody is watching them, and district gerry-mandering has made it increasingly difficult for voters to hold them accountable.

Good, I already addressed the risk issue. Annuities can be structured to eliminate risk entirely. What privatization does is reduce the FUTURE risk of people living too long by shifting some of that risk to the private sector. If we get to a 1 worker -- 1 retiree ratio that's an unsustainable model. There won't be any money to pay the worker at 65. Advances in medical science may very well make this a reality, and we need to begin talking about things like increasing the elgibility age and other sacrifices (including higher FICA)Americans are going to need to make.

Are you trying to tell me the government is more accountable than a regulated corporation?

Yes. Absolutely.

Corporations are theoretically accountable to their stockholders, but in practice the top executives are accountable to no one. It took Disney stockholders many years to push out Michael Eisner even when everyone wanted him gone.

The lack of a majority, perhaps?

Thought the point was that in spite of essential consensus, Eisner was hard to dislodge.

But was hiring Kristol assassination or suicide?

I know not why you think Clinton's heart is in the right place. Clinton is a REPUBLICAN. How many times must it be said? And it does not matter which Clinton.

[There is a rating attached, now.  It reflects the fact, apparently, that a part of the Democratic base does not feel comfortable admitting that our so called leadership has drifted so far to the right that Nixon was more liberal than most of 'em.  The DLC, through which the Clintons rose, is a Republican institution in the Democratic party and should be banished. I, for one, do not believe big tent politics includes room for Banker Republicans.  I know we need their money to compete, but they corrupt our values.]

Ellen, this needs to be explained to Americans better. The conservatives use the "Good for America" rhetoric to cover-up (whatever it is) that is really only good for a small percentage of conservatives.

The left allocates resources and distributions for the common good. One way to accomplish this is to level the playing field, or the equality principal. The more people that can participate in the economy and society, the more that the society, as a whole and individually, will prosper and flourish.

The right operates on the merit theory, believing that if industrious people are rewarded, then the lazy sinners will have no choice but to become industrious people. If, however, the industrious are on the same level as the lazy sinner, neither one of them has the incentive to produce.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

See, I apologize -- i just realized talking to G4America that i never defined what an annuity was and assumed everybody knew. In case you're not familiar, it's a special investment product that guarantees you an income for life no matter how long you live. So, if you're 100 and outlived your principle and interest years ago -- it's still paying you a monthly income.

It is for this reason I would favor those types of products over investing FICA in any kind of mutual fund. You get the guaranteed income for life and cannot lose your principle. Even far-left socialist countries like Sweden are privatizing part of their pensions and other countries are debating it now. It's not a right/left thing -- it's a common sense approach to ageing demographics and mounting social costs. Give it some consideration.

Enjoyed the debate -- have a good week, Sir.

Greg, see my reply to Luigi here for a possible self-publishing scenario using new technology.

Social Security (FICA) is a TAX. It is MISDIRECTION to say it is anything else.  It functioned (originally) as income transfer from TAX PAYERS to BENEFICIARIES.  Beginning in the 1980s, there became an effort to PREFUND the large obligation anticipated beginning just about NOW. 

There are theoretical reasons why you cannot PREFUND something as large as the retirement of a generation (the whole economy is not like a great big oversized individual).  So the project was defective from the start.

What happened instead is that the prefunding money was spent as a reduction in other taxes.  SOMETHING had to happen instead, because the project as conceptualized COULD NOT HAPPEN.  So, reducing other taxes was not "mismanagement," as I believe you have asserted somewhere in these threads.  It was, however, bad public policy as the net result was to favor regressive taxes over progressive taxes.

Your fear that SS will not be hear in 20-30 years rests SOLELY on the fact that progressive (INCOME) taxes will have to be reinstated and made more progressive sometime pretty soon.  This means that the favored class (the rich) will have to pay their fair share for the first time in a generation.  THAT IS THE ENTIRE UPSHOT OF THE PRESENT SITUATION.

SS will always be an income transfer program because when you apply the retirement practice to the ENTIRE SOCIETY, only income transfer works.  Prefunding is irrelevant.  When YOU put money away and later retrieve it and spend it, you are such a small part of the economy that the fact that the money has been fallow (or more likely, lent to someone else) for awhile is irrelevant.  However, if the whole society puts money away and later retrieves it, all it does is CHANGE THE VALUE OF THE MONEY.  Money has relative value in a market where it competes for goods and services.  Where there is less money, each bit is more valuable.  Where there is more money, each bit is less valuable.  Prefunding SS in a lock box sort of way would just screw up the money supply.

Shifting the cost of retirement from the public sector (SS) to the private sector (whatever made up method you have), does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the 1 to 1 ratio you are so concerned about.  The 1 to 1 ratio refers to how many people are working to support nonworking people.  Privatizing SS, or simply giving everyone whatever sort of private retirement plan each one individually wants, does NOT DO A THING about the 1 to 1 ratio.

If people won't pay the taxes needed to support SS, they ALSO won't work for the wages that are needed to provided for the Return on Equity that supports the same amount of private retirement funds.  What is your plan there?  Indentured servants?  What we are looking at is some future echo of the S&L catastrophe 10 times or 100 times as large that swallows tens of millions of peoples retirements.  That is what your plan is. 

Replace "can't" with "not likely to" replace Bush.