Did This Happen?

I don't like to trust paraphrases, but Jonathan Singer summary of Tom Vilsack's appearance at the Democratic candidates' forum in Nevada says "Final question covers Social Security and Medicare. Vilsack talks about balancing the budget of these programs by reindexing the program to prices, not prices and wages." Did Vilsack really say that? It's kind of technical, so people could easily miss it, but that means, over time, very large cuts in Social Security benefits.

My argument against price indexing from early 2005.

UPDATE: Also -- I forgot to mention this, but it strikes me as a somewhat bad idea for the Democratic primary calendar to be literally organized around a series of interest group-sponsored dog-and-pony shows (I believe that after this AFSCME forum later in the year we're going to have an SEIU forum and doubtless more will be coming down the road). It presents a somewhat caricatured view of the Democratic Party and progressive politics. Either the DNC or the state parties should take the lead in organizing a reasonable number of events.

Comments

That's what Ezra says happened too.

Posted by: SP on February 21, 2007 06:01 PM

Gee, from your argument against price indexing it seems like you think that unless the government provides you with a guaranteed increasing income compounding into the eternal future, there's no way you could possibly make the provisions for yourself...

So much for a safety net -- Social Security is now supposed to be a magic levitating rug!

Posted by: Chris on February 21, 2007 06:12 PM

SP, I think Matt and Ezra are getting all their information from the same source -- Jonathan Singer at MyDD.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on February 21, 2007 06:29 PM

Either the DNC or the state parties should take the lead in organizing a reasonable number of events.

Or, we could do without them altogether. It's February 2007! I'm personally insulted with the idea that I'm supposed to care one whit about what happened in the deba- ... er, forum, today.

Posted by: strannix on February 21, 2007 06:32 PM

As I recall, that column was wrong, because it ignored that the CPI substitutes new goods in its basket from time to time, and thus it is wrong to say that using price indexing means you'd be stuck at the standard of living of when people didn't really have telephones or electricity. I'd have to go back to the relevant comment thread from then to be sure.

Posted by: Al on February 21, 2007 06:39 PM

Let's see now, here we have a candidate who takes an apple (the infinitely sustainable Social Security), throws it in the basket with an orange (Medicare, which cannot help but have problems, with American healthcare being what it is), and offers a one-size-fits-all solution. Can we now dismiss him as a serious candidate and narrow the field a little?

In fact, why not toss out every candidate who has a "plan"? The simple fact is that most of our biggest problems are the result of greed (the drug industry), insanity and greed (marijuana prohibition), or insanity (We rule the world and command the tides- we're here to bring you democracy!). The obstacle to changing these things is not that nobody has come up with a plan.

We just can't find any candidates with enough guts to kick-start the discussion about changing.

Posted by: serial catowner on February 21, 2007 06:53 PM

Gee, from your argument against price indexing it seems like you think that unless the government provides you with a guaranteed increasing income compounding into the eternal future...

Chris: Matt's not referring to cost of living increases, which are indeed indexed to prices, and not to wages. Rather, he's referring to the formula used to calculate a person's initial level of benefits. Long story short, under the status quo the general increase in wages over the course of a worker's career is used rather than the increase in prices, and this is because wages (over the long term, at least) tend to increase faster than prices (else there would be no such thing as improvements in the standard of living). Retirees today would enjoy a drastically reduced standard of living if we used prices rather than wages in the calculus. Likewise, were we now to switch to the former, the purchasing power of social security checks would gradually atrophy with time. I personally don't think this would be such a bad idea if one is talking about wealthy retirees, but for average and poorer workers, it would absolutely suck.

Posted by: Jasper on February 21, 2007 07:23 PM

It is a horrible oversimplification to say that if you believe old people deserve plumbing, you should support wage indexing of social security benefits. Obviously, our standard of living has increased dramatically over time. But just as obviously, many items have dropped in price over time. Check out the cost of long distance in the 70s. Or television sets. Or a lot of other things.

Whether we keep SS increases using the current method, reduce benefit growth by indexing it to something else, or eliminate the program entirely, is a matter to be considered by the same legislative body which created the program. Nobody has a moral claim to a particular method of benefit indexing. And the sad fact is, nobody has a legal claim to any benefits at all.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by: Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report on February 21, 2007 09:21 PM

Nick,

True inflation is greater than reported in the Consumer Price Index, because the CPI is re-indexed based on "hedonics", under which a product that is more expensive, but has more features, doesn't count as having an inflated price, even if products with the same feature set as before are no longer on the market. We adjust the CPI to compensate for better televisions, but not to compensate in the other direction for the fact that furniture made of particle board is inferior to furniture made of real wood.

Retirees compete in the market against everyone else, and housing prices have been increasing faster than the CPI. Index to the CPI, and you'll have old folks out on the street before you know it.

Posted by: Joe Buck on February 21, 2007 09:46 PM

If the state parties (e.g. Nevada) think that Fox News is a suitable partner, then I'll take the interest-group pony shows.

Posted by: Joe Buck on February 21, 2007 09:47 PM

I watched it, and transcribed the exact quote here.

Posted by: hilzoy on February 21, 2007 10:17 PM

Does no one else think it's a problem when Democrats concede that labor (or black people or women, other common examples) is an "interest group" just like, say, trial lawyers or the telecommunications industry? At least Matt doesn't add "special". Not that the Democrats actually *are* the party of labor, not under people like Clinton and Kerry, but if they *were*, that wouldn't be something to be ashamed of.

Posted by: Kalkin on February 21, 2007 10:32 PM

In his closing statement, Kucinich stuck his arms out and spun around like a top, shouting "No strings! No strings!" That'll help his image problems.

Posted by: Different Chris on February 21, 2007 11:04 PM

Re: Kalkin on February 21, 2007 10:32 PM

Oh, that the Democrats really were the party of Labor!

We need a party in the US who is resolutely pro-labor. Many of us have labored our entire lives for the chance to be represented in the halls of Congress.

There are two kinds of people in this world: Builders and Destroyers. The Builders try to make a better world for everyone, and the Destroyers want to tear everything down.


The Builders want to create a better world for ourselves and our children. We want to make the future a positive place, where children can dream big dreams, and have them come true.

THe Destroyers want to undo everything that was done before, and make sure that nothing positive ever happens.

This is not a fantasy, for it represents all the forces at work in the world today. Builders and Destroyers.

Which one are you? A builder or a destroyer?

Posted by: James Hogan on February 21, 2007 11:09 PM

The question of price indexing vs. wage indexing is:

Should the standard of living guaranteed by Social Security increase over time, or stay the same?

I can see a strong argument for "increase", since if it stays the same, that would mean larger and larger drops in quality of living for people when they retire (imagine retiring now and being guaranteed a 1900 standard of living!).

But, realistically, Social Security is going to get cut if we don't find some way to fix the system (Medicare more so). The money to pay for it just isn't there. So if we don't mend it, someone will certainly end it - before Matt or I collect our first retirement check, that's for sure.

The thing to do is transition from the current pay-forward system to a "pay as you go" system (basically, forced retirement savings), but that switch is going to cost a lot of money.

Posted by: Mr. Noah on February 21, 2007 11:39 PM

Kalkin, the 2004 Democratic platform was more labor-friendly than any we'd seen in 15-20 years.

Kerry won the union vote in the Iowa caucuses, and the union vote in almost every primary/caucus state thereafter. In Wisconsin, which he won by only 40%-34% over John Edwards, Kerry was taking outright majorities in the heavily unionized precincts of Milwaukee and the heavily unionized northern counties by Lake Superior. Most unions had officially endorsed either Gephardt or Dean in 2003, but the membership didn't follow along. (Edwards also did well among union voters in Iowa, but after the bandwagon got rolling, union voters swung even more heavily towards Kerry then non-union voters did.)

If we're going to define who the labor candidate is by who union members vote for, then sorry, but Kerry was the union candidate. If we're going to define who the labor candidate is by who has the best labor agenda, then Dennis Kucinich is the union candidate. If we're going to define who the best labor candidate is by who Matthew Yglesias' comments section thinks is the best labor candidate, then...*shudder*...God only knows who'll that'll be.

Posted by: Different Chris on February 22, 2007 12:36 AM

"The money to pay for it just isn't there."

Wrong.

The money to pay for the general budget defict isn't there, due to GWB's improvident tax cuts, which need to be remedied ASAP. Socel security has been used during the
Repblican adminstrations of the last 2 decades to fund tax cuts for the rich. It's just that simple.

If the top 1% of this country can be persuaded or compelled to pay their fair share, there will be no problem.

Posted by: rea on February 22, 2007 06:45 AM

Following up on Rea's comment, isn't it true that the projection that shows SS unable to pay out full benefits starting in 2040 is the "middle" projection offered by the SSA? And isn't it also true that the "high" projection has historically been the most accurate, in which case SS will be able to pay full benefits far past 2040?

What I'm waiting for is a candidate to articulate the reality of the increasing financial risk that confronts workers. Social Security is one of the few things that mitigates this risk (national healthcare would be another) and should be championed, not diminished.

Posted by: Kurzbein on February 22, 2007 08:12 AM

And so we cycle through the wankery of wonkery of policy, discretely averting our eyes from the indecorous fact that AIN'T NUTTIN' ROUND HERE GONNA GET FIXED as long as our highest goals are more bombs and prisons.

Which, in a sense, is a rude form of justice for an aging population that lacks the courage to assume a peaceful role in world events.

But kinda harsh on the children.

Posted by: serial catowner on February 22, 2007 08:21 AM

The money to pay for the general budget defict isn't there, due to GWB's improvident tax cuts, which need to be remedied ASAP. Socel security has been used during the Repblican adminstrations of the last 2 decades to fund tax cuts for the rich. It's just that simple.

If the top 1% of this country can be persuaded or compelled to pay their fair share, there will be no problem.

When I say "the money just isn't there," I mean in the near future. Social Security and Medicare run surpluses now, but they'll eventually run into the red. And when they do, they'll run WAY into the red.

It would be nice if the top 1% could pay for that shortfall, but even if we taxed them at 90% (which is impractical), it wouldn't plug the hole.

Repealing Bush's tax cuts is a good idea, but even that won't be enough to fix the non-entitlement budget deficit, much of which is currently being funded with the entitlement surplus. So what do we do when entitlements themselves run into the red??

The answer: We either 1) cut benefits, 2) raise taxes on the middle class big-time, or 3) go into massive unbelievable debt that makes our current debt look tame in comparison.

It would be nice if we could fix this just by asking the richest Americans to pay their fair share, but that won't be enough. And wishing it were true doesn't make it so, any more than inviting "global warming skeptics" to climate change conferences makes climate change any less likely to happen.

Posted by: Mr. Noah on February 22, 2007 08:56 AM

Social Security and Medicare

bzzt!

Now, from your previous comment, it seems that this

Social Security and Medicare run surpluses now, but they'll eventually run into the red. And when they do, they'll run WAY into the red.

was meant to apply to Social Security and Medicare separately. But as I understand, it's just not obviously true of Social Security (given what was said above about the high projection) -- or if it is, Social Security's running way into the red is reasonably projected to be a long way off. It's just inaccurate to lump Social Security with Medicare here.

Posted by: Matt Weiner on February 22, 2007 09:07 AM

Labor is not just an interest group, it is the key to achieving any number of the Democratic Party's policy goals that have nothing to do with labor on their face, not to mention the key to partisan success in terms of GOTV shock troops and the like. Of course every Democrat is "pro-labor" on some level, but how many of them truly get that labor is the hub and everything else is a spoke? Of the leading candidates, only John Edwards ("unions are the best anti-poverty program ever invented") gets this for sure. You'd think Matt would get it, but this post makes me wonder.

Posted by: Steve on February 22, 2007 09:28 AM

thanks

Posted by: mirc on September 23, 2007 08:50 AM

thankss

Posted by: indir on October 14, 2007 08:28 AM

thanksss

Posted by: oyun indir on January 11, 2008 12:55 PM

thank you admins.

Posted by: youtube on February 6, 2008 06:34 PM

great blog
thanks

Posted by: Porno on February 9, 2008 04:06 PM

thanks...

Posted by: porno izle on March 1, 2008 07:01 AM

Thanks

Posted by: Dunya Zirvesi on March 7, 2008 01:32 PM

thanks

Posted by: html kodları on March 20, 2008 09:50 AM

nnouncing Thumbq, the trendy, stylish and free Photo host. Thumbq is simple, straight forward and unlike other services that add so much clutter and so much sophistication to your images, Thumbq makes your images even more beautiful!

Posted by: travesti on March 23, 2008 12:54 PM

straight forward and unlike other services that add so much clutter and so much sophistication to your images, Thumbq makes your images even more beautiful!

Posted by: transseksuel on March 23, 2008 01:04 PM

add so much clutter and so much sophistication to your images, Thumbq makes your images even more beautiful!

Posted by: jigolo on March 23, 2008 01:05 PM

thanks ;)

Posted by: firefox indir on March 31, 2008 04:11 AM

thanks good... murat kekilli murat kekilli songs murat kekilli resimleri murat kekilli mp3

Posted by: Murat Kekilli on March 31, 2008 12:55 PM

thank you !

Posted by: firefox indir on March 31, 2008 01:10 PM

thanks

Posted by: sex on April 3, 2008 12:56 PM

thank you

Posted by: maswey on April 9, 2008 10:39 AM

thank you

Posted by: firefox nedir on April 13, 2008 03:11 AM

matthewyglesias.com

Posted by: cep program, symbian program on May 5, 2008 02:36 AM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif