Not a week goes by without a fresh attack on the president’s Social Security ideas from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. A reader who has made a study of the liberal think tank’s papers was moved to write a poem about them:

The President’s Social Security Proposal (A Summary of Analyses by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

These accounts will lose money[1], a terrible imposition But everyone will want one, causing an unaffordable transition[2] This rate of growth for benefits should fill our young with dread[3] We should save them from this horror and raise their taxes high instead[4] The top one percent of earners should get benefits above inflation,[5] Even if that means raising taxes on every worker in the nation,[6] When counting costs, sum all of the investments in accounts[7], But to measure benefits, disregard all of those amounts[8], Pozen’s benefit proposal solves too much of the riddle[9], On second thought, it actually accomplishes too little[10], Today’s unfunded promises should be considered as safe as in the vault,[11] But better funded promises should be taken with a grain of salt[12], We believe that benefits and payroll taxes should stay linked[13], But the system would be fine if only the death tax weren’t extinct[14] It’s regressive[15] yet it’s welfare[16], costs go up[17] but benefits not[18], Your income has been cut if you get more than Grandpa got[19].

——————————————————————————– [1] http://www.cbpp.org/5-6-05socsec2.htm. Cites Shiller paper alleging that account holders will lose money, based on assumptions inconsistent with SSA projections, and a “life cycle fund” unrelated to Admin proposal. [2] http://www.cbpp.org/12-13-04socsec.htm. Bases transition cost estimates on assumption that every eligible worker in America will voluntarily choose a personal account. [3] http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-05socsec.htm. Describes benefit growth above inflation as the biggest benefit cut in history. [4] http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-05socsec.htm Favorably mentions a plan to raise payroll taxes on future workers. [5] http://www.cbpp.org/3-21-05socsec.htm. Argues that subjecting fewer than the highest 1% of wage earners to inflation-indexed benefits would destroy their support for Social Security. [6] http://www.cbpp.org/3-21-05socsec.htm. Favorably mentions a plan to raise payroll tax rates that would affect workers at all wage levels. [7] http://www.cbpp.org/12-13-04socsec.htm. Assumes that current system pays benefits as scheduled and that personal account investments are a purely additional expenditure. [8] http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-05socsec.htm. Contains chart purporting to show severely reduced benefits for account holders, but without showing their benefits from the accounts. [9] http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-05socsec.htm. Argues that the Pozen changes go too far in eliminating “most” of the shortfall. [10] http://www.cbpp.org/5-6-05socsec2.htm, Argues that analyses of Pozen proposal should be disregarded because the Pozen plan does not solve the entire Social Security problem. [11] http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-05socsec.htm. End of paper argues that the only reasonable comparisons for a plan are to all currently-scheduled benefits, even if these cannot be funded under current law. [12] http://www.cbpp.org/5-6-05socsec2.htm. Argues that benefits under Pozen should be adjusted downward because Pozen is not a complete fix of the system. The promises under Pozen are much closer to what can be funded than are scheduled benefits under the current system, which CBPP previously argued should be the basis of comparison without adjustment. [13] http://www.cbpp.org/3-21-05socsec.htm. Incorrectly argues that progressive price indexing would sever the link between Social Security taxes and benefits. [14] http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-05socsec.htm. Favorably mentions a proposal to begin using estate tax revenues to fund Social Security, which would sever the connection between payroll taxes and benefits. [15] http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-05socsec.htm. Argues that the proposal is not progressive based because it does not reduce the non-Social Security retirement income of the very wealthy. [16] http://www.cbpp.org/3-21-05socsec.htm. Argues that progressive price indexing is too progressive and would turn Social Security into welfare. [17] http://www.cbpp.org/2-3-05socsec.htm. Argues that personal accounts add costs. [18] http://www.cbpp.org/5-6-05socsec2.htm. Numerous allegations of benefit reductions despite the supposedly added costs. [19] http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-05socsec.htm. Refers to benefit growth above inflation as a benefit reduction.