Nathan Newman has an older article on his main page about Social Security Privatization that is highly misleading. There are quite a few problems in that article.

First off there is this quote,

"They promised to preserve the benefits of all current retirees and those nearing retirement."

Which is a nice promise and when you bullshit the public, you often can get short-term political gain. But read the sentence again. What is says first is that there is no promise that most working people paying into the social security system will get full benefits.

Nathan is quoting Vin Weber about Social Security privatizatin. He is right that there is no promise, but what Nathan is implicitly stating is that current people paying into the system should be entitled to full benefits. Should they? If you favor means testing you disagree with Nathan. If you favor some sort of opt-out scheme you disagree with Nathan. If you think the current system can be salvaged by doing things like lowering benefits in the future and raising the limit on incomes that that the Social Security tax applies too, you disagree with Nathan.

The next part is an outright false statement,

Second, if you take a big chunk of social security taxes and put them into private accounts, that means you have to use a chunk of income taxes or other general revenue to pay for current retirees.

Not true at all. You can pay for it via debt. Arnold Kling notes here that the concern raised by many liberals on this score is misleading. The transition cost argument is bogus.

Under the current system who pays for today's retirees? Current workers.

Under the current system who will pay for today's workers? Future workers.

Under a privatized system who pays for current workers if you issue debt? Future workers.

Under a privatized system who pays for current workers? Today's workers.

Future workers are on the hook no matter how you do it. Today's workers are on the hook no matter how you do it. There is no magic money problem that those on the Left try to claim. They are simply being misleading...perhaps purposefully so.

Nathan then debuts his ignorance of some of the privatization plans for the world (or at least the readership of the Progressive Populist).

So here is what social security privatization means for younger workers:
(1) Your guaranteed benefits will be slashed and if your personal account goes south in an Enron-style mess, you will be eating cat food in retirement.

Bzzt, wrong. Guys like Laurence Kotlikoff has suggested a plan where the principle amount in private accounts are insured by the government, much like the current system of insuring bank deposits. So the idea you'll have to eat cat food is just stupid. Also, Kotlikoff's plan has only one fund that you are forced to invest a fixed percentage of your income. You will have no choice, so there will be no attempts to time the market, follow up on a hot stock tip from Uncle Jimmy and so forth. It is much like the current system with the difference that there actually is an account with money in it and your name on it.

(2) While it sounds like free money, you will actually be paying for those private accounts through increased income or other taxes.

True, but you wont have to pay the Social Security tax. One could argue that the fixed portion that is invested by force is like a tax, but it is actually forced savings. If Nathan doesn't like this then why does he like the current system which uses just as much force, but takes a workers money and gives it to a current retiree? Kotlikoff's plan actually means you'll have some savings in 30 or 40 years when you retire. If it is the corecion that is troublesome to Nathan then how can he justify his support in general for taxes?

(3) Therefore, the scam is that young workers get to pay double taxation, for present retirees and again to cover the costs of their own accounts.

Not if you cover the costs of current retirees with debt. The costs will then be borne by future workers (who are already on the hook to pay for today's workers).

Cute bait and switch, huh? The GOP gets to sound all progressive and pro-young worker, when they really are screwing them as thoroughly as possible. Economist Paul Krugman at the New York Times has long been skewering Bush over the deceptive math involved in these proposals.

Actually no. As Arnold Kling has noted, it is Paul Krugman who is being deceptive.

The standard political story of social security privatization is that seniors will hate it politically, but that young people will be won over to the GOP on the issue. The actual politics is really the reverse. Most present retirees won't feel a thing, but younger workers are the ones who should be up in arms at the GOP playing these deceptive games with their future.

The reality though is that many young people feel that there will be reduced or no Social Security for them anyways, so being up in arms is pointless from the young person point of view.

Near the end of the article, after Nathan pretends the whole universe of Social Security privatization plans is the Archer-Shaw bill, he states,

There are other variations on social security privatization, but they are all based on lies and financial manipulations-- the end result being the same. The deficit increases, average folks lose out, and rich retirees are the only ones who benefit.

Again, not entirely true. While it is the case that the deficit would increase, it is not clear the working class would be screwed. In one sense they'd be guaranteed at least the value of the principle and given a balanced fund it is unlikely this would be total amount available to the retiree. For example, a person who earns only $670.00 every two weeks and pays in 12% to his personalized retirement fund after 30 years with a 4.5% rate of return this fellow would have $132,000 for retirement. Not great, but considering the person has made only $17,420/year for the last 30 years what do you expect.

It woud be nice if people stopped with the misleading rhetoric about privatizing social security. While a transition wont be painless it can be done and there are indeed some good reasons as to why it should be done.

Any woman deserves a medal for putting up with his buffoonary and self-interested focus for 10 years. Who says he dumped her? She probably finally got her wits about her enough to leave.

Rush would have been better off having sex while on the radio. He could deny it and go in front of the American people and swear that he did not do it. He could get high approval ratings perhaps weep and tell us he is a good man.
After that when some poor woman who's husband dies he could grope her in a closet. The womens groups can back him and tell America that their relationship doesn't matter.

Rush then could swear he is loyal to his wife, again the womens lobbing groups can attest to his greatness. When confronted by unchallenging evidence that he is a liar he could admit that he is a mere mortal and blame his mother.

OH sorry, someone already did that....

Nice try, but Limbaugh has never quoted the Bible on the issues of homosexuality, the sanctity of marriage, or divorce. Next smear.

And where's your support for the assertion that he has "dumped" his wife?

I will fight to my dying day to keep the highest patriot in the land, Rush, from having his name sullen and smeared by divorce-loving, easy-on-annulment liberals. I hereby salute those who, in this comments box, have risen to join me in this righteous campaign.

It is true that Rush never based himself on the Holy Word to condemn homosexuals. The TRUE basis for his condemnation comes from the abomination itself. The abomination, I say verily. As in ABOMINABLE snowman. Need he go any farther?

This is a time of mourning and renewal for Rush, so get off his back, liberal hypocrites, lest you feel Rush's radio wrath.

Wow Nathan, this post really attracted the wingnuts like sugar attracts ants.

Oh, and let's stone anyone who gathers firewood on Saturdays, wears multi-fabric clothing, or eats shrimp.

"Oh, and let's stone anyone who gathers firewood on Saturdays, wears multi-fabric clothing, or eats shrimp."

Especially shrimp. Death to all shrimp eaters.

"Oh, and let's stone anyone who gathers firewood on Saturdays, wears multi-fabric clothing, or eats shrimp."

Especially shrimp. Death to all shrimp eaters. Why do the liberals always feel the need to protect the shrimp eaters?

Kevin, for the record: I was being facetious.

Had I taken the Rush defenses seriously, I would have, for instance, asked Smith how it is possible to speak of the "sanctity of marriage" without referring (if only implicitly) to the Bible. What notion of sanctity does he think Rush had in mind when he used this phrase (that is, when he echoed those who always quote the Bible to support such language)? The Taoist one? Perhaps he felt an allusion to Shintoism was at play?

As for the fine distinction Smith insists upon between "dumping," on the one hand, and, on the other, "separating" or "divorce," perhaps we should consult a group of junior high schoolers to find out just what is entailed in this concept of "dumping." When is a "dump" a "dump"? And who "dumped" whom? Did Rush dump, or did his wife dump? And if they both dumped, is a mutal dump still a dump?

All very fascinating stuff whose subtleties, over the years, I seem to have forgotten.

Be sure to check out godhatesshrimp.com for a site that puts the fun back in fundamentalism.

"Conservatives and Divorce" re Rush Limbaugh
The difference is that True Conservatives view a divorce a failier of the worst kind. Liberals seems to consider it to be something to be celebrated.
When a Liberal behaves badly and feels guilty the response it to become incredulous about the guilt and then proceed to do what ever it takes to make that behaviour normal and acceptable never thinking he should feel guilty because he is.
It's the Amarosa Syndrome "I feel unconfortable, Who can a blame"

Tim

I'm a liberal who grew up in the 1970s. I believe diorce is an abomination and should be outlawed before any attempts are made to deny marriage to people.