George W. Bush may not be the smartest president, but he's certainly a clever politician. Many of the policies he has championed have not just advanced his conservative agenda, but have also helped earn the GOP electoral success for years to come. First, he called for government aid to faith-based charities. This gave money to his religious backers while suggesting that caring for the unfortunate was not a job for government. Even more importantly, it gave Republicans inroads into traditionally black churches. Pleased with Bush's very visible commitment, some blacks who would normally vote Democrat voted for Bush instead.
Similarly, Bush talks endlessly about changing tort laws so injured people can't be adequately repaid. Never mind that out-of-control malpractice premiums have nothing to do with trial lawyers-even where so-called tort reform is actually instituted, it doesn't curb the insurance companies' voracious appetite for premiums. Limiting the amount that trial lawyers can earn helps Bush's corporate backers while cutting off political donations trial lawyers might make to Democrats.
Now that Bush's Social Security privatization plan is beginning to take shape, we can see it's just more of the same. Private accounts can't save Social Security. In fact, they can do little but hurt it. But diverting Social Security dollars into private accounts serves two important GOP purposes. It lines the pockets of investment bankers, who are happy to send part of their lucre right back to Republicans in the form of campaign contributions.
In Britain, fees cost more than 40 percent of the money earned in private accounts. In Chile it's over a third, with the added bonus that the benefits of privatization are trifling, with many receiving less than they would have in the traditional program. Here at home, the Wall Street Journal's conservative estimate is that $60 billion a year could flow into mutual funds and other securities.
More significantly, it helps Bush convince average Americans that they can participate in his \ownership society."" The real owners are the richest 1 percent of Americans, who own almost half the country's monetary assets. The richest 15 percent combine to own nearly everything. The beauty of the ""ownership society"" idea is that it fools Joe Average into believing that what's good for the super-rich-a booming stock market, corporate deregulation and lower taxes on capital gains-is also good for him.
Of course, none of these things are good for old Joe. A bull market might mean that his employer is paying out profits as dividends to the rich, rather than as salary to him. Even if he owns some of his company's stock, his share of any capital gain is a lot less than his share of his salary, so he still loses out. Deregulation means higher costs for consumers and worse customer service, so Joe's stuck paying more for cable, phone and electricity as fewer providers compete to keep prices down. Not even lower capital gains taxes help Joe, since his paltry stock holdings are already in tax-favored forms.
To add insult to injury, The New York Times recently reported that ""owning"" a private social security account would be quite unlike actual ownership. The government would allow Joe to choose from only a few approved investment options, rather than having the control and freedom that come from real ownership. Then, when Sexagenarian Joe finally reaches retirement age, the government doesn't give him the money his account has earned (minus those big fees, of course). Instead, it takes at least part of the money away and forces him to put it in an annuity that pays out enough, combined with Joe's traditional social security benefits, to reach the poverty level.
So much for Bush's rhetoric on ownership. After Joe's years of contributions, he can't even control his own money. He's told he'll buy an annuity, and for how much. That sure sounds like the government taking control of his ""private"" account. Then the government might reduce his traditional benefits by whatever small amount he's earned. Somehow, Joe's retirement doesn't seem any more secure.
Conservatives have wanted to undo Social Security since it was first created. In 1936 Republican presidential candidate Alf Landon ran on a platform denigrating Social Security as wasted money better invested elsewhere and dismissing the reserve fund built on government bonds. In the wake of the stock market crash and Great Depression, the American people elected Franklin Roosevelt instead, and the triumph of New Deal liberalism has given us our most popular and successful social program.
But the times, they have a changed. In the wake of Sept. 11, the people picked George W. Bush, and he's out not only to take apart FDR's legacy, but to ensure GOP domination for the future as well.
