Mulit-millionaire Glenn Beck Tries To Sell You On Giving Up Social Security And Medicare
Reported by Ellen - April 14, 2010 -
On Day 2 of Glenn Beck’s weeklong series devoted to “The Plan” to save America, Beck revived one of his former pet projects: abolishing Social Security and Medicare. This time, however, Beck enlisted a couple of pals to help him sell his audience on the benefits of living without a social safety net. One guest, Chris Edwards of The Cato Institute argued that retirees would be safer without the safety net. Beck, however, revealed that his only real interest was in getting rid of the programs, not to figure out any alternatives; when he argued against Edwards’ plan, Beck admitted that he had just made up his own plan on the spot. In other words, destroying other people’s social safety net was the only part of Beck’s Plan that he had bothered to plan. As everyone sang the praises of getting young people to give up their Social Security and Medicare, nobody mentioned that the one sure benefit of getting rid of Social Security and Medicare would be to the bottom line of Beck’s and other millionaires’ tax bill. With video.
Edwards repeatedly hawked privatization as some kind of safer safety net for seniors. He both fear mongered about the current system and then pooh-poohed the risks involved in having to manage your own investment account(s). “I think that there’s a lot less market risk than there is government risk. The current system, people are trusting politicians to pay those benefits and, frankly, the money isn’t going to be there when they retire. Over the long term… investing in equities and bonds is very safe.” Unless, of course, you happened to retire just when the market crashes, as it did last year.
Beck drooled, “The market just went up yesterday, what is it, like 11,000?” Um, isn’t this the economy that Beck keeps arguing is in danger of being taken over and demolished by the Obama administration?
Guest Stephen Dubner joined the meme. Not surprisingly, there was no balancing opinion on the “fair and balanced” network’s program. “If you’d been investing for let’s say, eight years, and then the recession happened, the stock market melt down happened and you sold in the middle of it? And you haven’t bought back yet? You lost 40, 50 percent.” And what if you sold off because you needed the money last year? I guess you're just SOL according to these folks.
Beck said pessimistically, “You’re gonna lose it again. You will.” However, Beck later said, “(The stock market) is a better bet than the federal government.”
Edwards’ plan for demolishing Social Security was not to change it for “old folks” but for those under 55. You should tell them they have a choice, according to Edwards. “Stay in the current system that’s going bankrupt and you have to trust the politicians and you have no legal right to your benefit or go to private accounts put money in Fidelity, invest it there for decades, watch it grow. That’s the choice we give to young people.” He didn’t mention that that was also the risk he wanted to give them.
Edwards continued, “Individuals have more security owning a private account” because Congress “can cut benefits any time it wants.” Of course, Congress would have to face the will of the electorate if that happened as opposed, to say, a huge dive in the stock market that would just cut your nest egg at any time. And Congress could also restore the benefits any time it wanted, as opposed to say, a huge dive in the stock market at any time.
That was too progressive for Beck. He said, “You’re 55 years old to 62, maybe you get 40%,” though he acknowledged he had just made that up “on the spot.” “62+, OK, we’re going to take care of you. But if you’re below 54, and this includes me, you get nothing.” Beck forgot to mention how much better off he is than the average below-54 year old. “Then we go back to…. we slave it to the live expectancy… As the life expectancy goes up, so does the retirement age.” He later brought up football helmets which, he said, cause reckless behavior and therefore “prove” that everyone should have less protection.
And yet, I didn’t hear Beck say anything about deciding to go without health insurance because it would surely give him an incentive to stay healthier, rather than take risks he wouldn’t otherwise take because he’s protected, or going without home insurance so that he’ll take better care of his home. No, it’s the rest of us who should take on more risk while the one sure winner is Beck’s bottom line.
