carapace – Not your father's america

February 25, 2005

President Bush’s remarks to foreign leaders about spreading democracy caused a widespread panic this week among individuals and nations who were uncertain as to the import of his remarks. Early in the week, Bush told foreign leaders that he would spread democracy throughout the world so that the flower of liberty will continue to bloom and grow. “We have spread democracy all around and planted the seeds of liberty,” said Bush. “If you water that seed, there’ll be lots of fruits.” Bush then pledged to “aggressively spread democracy everywhere.”

His remarks alarmed many, and several small democracies, and one theocratic monarchy, evacuated pending clarification from the United States.

After his remarks about the spread of democracy, President Bush talked about “being tough with the moolahs,” which quickly plunged economic markets around the world into a downward spiral. White House spokespersons later clarified that the President’s words should not have panicked anyone, because the President “did not mean what he said,” and “was not sure what he was talking about.”

A poll found that Bush’s statements about spreading democracy were slightly better received in Western Europe than elsewhere: 68% of Western Europeans did not trust Bush to spread democracy, and 68% thought that Bush was talking about spreading something else. “I know what he was talking about, but I think he meant ‘compost,’” said Gerhadt Sheinmutter, a German gardener. Nine out of ten Europeans also mentioned that they did not need a Bush spread, whatever it was, because they had Nutella.

In the wake of the reaction to his remarks, President Bush today promised to speak more plainly, but noted that he “was keeping his options open.”

http://www.tomburka.com/

02/08/2005 @ 4:42pm

In Bush’s State of the Union address, he mentioned personal accounts seven times but private accounts zero times, which is interesting because only a few months ago he was using both terms interchangeably. But fear not, this was no mistake. The Republicans tested the phrase private accounts and found public support was much lower than when the same, exact, identical concept was called personal accounts. (Personally, I like caring accounts, but they didn’t ask me.)

So the White House and its paid spin doctors, many of whom play journalists on TV, have taken to the airwaves to push the phrase personal accounts and chastise anyone in the media who employs the banished words to characterize ther Administration’s Social Security agenda. Proof, if more was needed, that language is power and debates are won or lost based on definitions.

But here is the really funny thing about the personal/private accounts debate. Not only are they not personal accounts, they’re not private accounts either. They are in fact US government loans. (Bear with me now, because this will only hurt for a moment.) You see, your payroll taxes will still be used to cover the benefits of current retirees, but under Bush’s scheme the government will place a certain “diverted” amount into an account in your name. It sounds like a personal retirement account, but it’s not. It’s a loan. Because if your account does really well (above 3 percent), when you retire the government will deduct the money it lent you (plus 3 percent interest) from your monthly Social Security check leaving you with almost the same amount you would have received under the current system. If your account does really poorly (below 3 percent), you are out of luck. According to Congressional Budget Office, the expected average return will be 3.3 percent, so the net gain will be zero.

But wait, it gets better. These personal accounts aren’t exactly US government loans either, because our government under the fiscal stewardship of George W. Bush no longer is running a surplus and therefore does not have the $4 trillion or so needed to cover the transition costs, and Bush refuses to raise taxes on his base (BUSH’S BASE, n. the wealthy).

So our government will have to borrow that cash. And if the last three years are any guide, our largest single loan officer will likely be the Central Bank of China. And who runs China’s Central Bank, China, and the Chinese people with an iron fist? Why, it’s our old friends, the democracy-loving, freedom-marching Chinese Communist Party. So Bush’s personal retirement accounts=private retirement accounts=US government loans=US government borrowing=Chinese government lending=Chinese Communist Party loans.

Or as we like to say in Republican Dictionary land:

PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, n. Chinese Communist Party loans.

Read more: http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7&pid=2182

California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) trustees voted 9-3 against a scheme by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to privatize the state’s retirement system by replacing defined-benefit pensions with a 401(k)-type plan for future employees.

Schwarzenegger also is trying to privatize the state’s retirement system through legislation, and if that fails he has threatened to hold a special election on a privatization ballotinitiative. CalPERS is the largest public pension fund in the United States, with more than $182 billion in assets. It administers retirement and health benefits for 1.4 million current and retired California public employees and their families. On Feb. 3, trustees of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System voted 10-2 against the plan, after which Schwarzenegger fired all four of his appointees who voted against it.

From: Work in Progress

www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2692/1/321

Analyses of pending and expected antiregulatory proposals have revealed the usual themes from years past — net benefits, regulatory budgeting, sunsets, and so on. An unexpected theme has also been emerging, which is worth noting for anyone committed to a progressive vision of an open, accountable government responsive to public needs: a trend in favor of concentrating power in the White House free of democratic accountability. In short, the creation of an imperial presidency.

Here is the link

http://www.ssab.gov/financing/2004_update.pdf

and an a short excerpt:

This memorandum provides long-range estimates of the effects on trust fund solvency and operations of several provisions that would change the current-law OASDI (combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance) program. The provisions represent a range of generic changes that have been considered in recent years. The Advisory Board has requested estimates for these provisions. Estimates for the provisions are based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2004 Trustees Report.