Speaking of stalking horses ... It's remarkable to find, in the same A section that gives us Rick Lyman's report on Medicaid privatization in Florida (post below), John M. Broder writing about the Gubernator's proposal to "reform" Calpers, California's state pension system, along with the state's parallel system covering its teachers. Taken together, the two pieces make it abundantly clear that the national Republican party has determined to proceed on a broad front to gut all social insurance programs of any size—and that these are merely the opening salvos of a years-long battle.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, echoing language used by those who claim Social Security is headed for a crisis, contends that California can no longer afford a generous traditional pension plan for state employees and teachers and should force all new workers into a 401(k)-style plan of private accounts.

"Schwarzenegger Aims at State Pension System"

Again, not a piece that makes it all the way to A1, though it is the lead article in the interior National Report.

And congratulations to Broder, who nails this one down tight. His piece is significantly more thorough and tough-minded than Lyman's; Broder thoroughly understands the implications of what Schwarzenegger is up to and has no qualms about stating them. Nor does he allow the privatizers to control the piece's agenda, where they can be called out on the facts:

Mr. Schwarzenegger, in his State of the State address earlier this month, described California's pension system as "another government program out of control," careering toward fiscal ruin. He cited the state's obligation to inject $2.6 billion into the system this year to keep it actuarially sound, compared with $160 million four years ago ...

Although Mr. Schwarzenegger described the plans as a looming train wreck, even advocates of privatization in his own administration say the system is currently sound. The plans, taken together, are nearly 90 percent funded, a level that most experts consider quite healthy ...

The state contribution to the system this year is large because of a downturn in the market, not because of extravagant benefits paid to retirees ... The state has benefited in the past from a strong stock market and in some years has had to make no payments into the funds.

"Calpers investments have generated $173 billion over the last 20 years," said Patricia K. Macht, a spokeswoman for the fund. "Why would anyone want to throw away the chance to add another $173 billion over the next 20 years? People see this as an opportunity to use a temporary downturn to drive a stake into the heart of a well-funded system."

Self-evidently, the ginning up of a "crisis" in the well run, well funded Calpers system follows exactly the national Social Security playbook. [Anyone out there still sold on the notion of the Ahnud's "moderation"?] Writing about Lyman's piece, I wondered about the operation of the privatization apparat in coordinating the attack a state level, and Broder's right there with me:

The impetus for Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan comes from some of the same antitax advocates, free-market enthusiasts and Wall Street interests pushing President Bush's Social Security initiative. Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington lobbying and research group, has endorsed the plan. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in California, is sponsoring a similar measure ...

Although Social Security and the California pension plans have important differences and different long-term challenges, the proposed solution - private accounts managed by individual workers with a predetermined contribution by employers - is basically the same.

"They certainly are kissing sisters," said Stephen Moore, the former director of the conservative Club for Growth who is now the president of a political action committee, the Free Enterprise Fund, which is dedicated to remaking Social Security. "These are proposals that aim toward giving people real ownership and a real stake in how the economy and the stock market perform."

Mr. Moore, who has advised Mr. Schwarzenegger on economic policy and participated in an independent audit of state finances last year, said that California tends to lead the nation on social policy. If California moves from a traditional defined-benefit pension plan to a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan, the nation is likely to follow, he said.

And Broder winds up the piece by noting the wider social dimensions of a Calpers privatization, in a way almost calculated to make the right-wing bias hunters howl:

Some opponents of privatization also detect a subtler agenda among those pushing private accounts - to silence the voice of workers and their pension fund managers, who oversee some of the largest institutional investment accounts in the nation. Calpers has been a leader in an effort to bring greater accountability to corporate boardrooms ...

Richard C. Ferlauto, director of pension investment policy for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said that Mr. Schwarzenegger and others were manufacturing a crisis to justify sweeping changes to the retirement systems that millions of workers rely on and to throttle the influence the workers wield through their pension plan investments.

"The debate around private accounts will be fought in California before the outcome of the Social Security debate is determined," Mr. Ferlauto said. "The attempt in California is the stalking horse for whether private accounts can be sold to the American public."

Bracing to see such clear-headed work from Broder: if only the crew who write for the Times about Social Security privatization could manage as well.

posted by michael  12:19:20 PM  
tell me about it []  

 

Privatization: Not just for Social Security anymore. Arguably the most important piece in the Times' A section today, for its national implications, doesn't make it further to the front than A18 (though, to be fair, how can it when the competition includes Eric Wilson's heartbreaking account of troubles at "the revered fashion house of Givenchy," surely a topic of concern to every American who's ever bought a couture gown?). Rick Lyman writes from Florida about the possibility of that state radically restructuring its Medicaid program, and it's a telling glimpse into our future:

America's governors, struggling for a grip on mounting Medicaid costs, are restricting access, squeezing providers and chipping away at services. But perhaps no one is proposing changes as far-reaching and fundamental as Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida.

Mr. Bush is proposing that the state's 2.1 million Medicaid recipients be allotted money to buy their own health care coverage from managed care organizations and other private medical networks. If enacted, the program would make Florida the first state to allow private companies, not the state, to decide the scope and extent of services to the elderly, the disabled and the poor, half of them children.

"Florida Offers a Bold Stroke to Fight Medicaid Cost"

Sound like any other currently proposed social-spending overhaul you can think of?

The piece is workmanlike and evenhanded—which would sound like faint praise, but is not, in view of the Times' generally miserable track record in anything having to do with Jeb Bush—and does not shy away from justifiable use of the term "radical" to characterize the Florida proposal. (Nor does it shy away from use of the terms "private" or "privatization," even though it's clear that they're on the Republican proscription list, at least as regards the parallel Social Security, uh, reform. They're likely to be proscribed for Medicaid privatization, too; amusingly, Lyman reports that the Jeb plan is officially called "empowered care.") And though it comes late in the piece, Lyman is forthright enough to articulate the necessary critical context for what Jeb wants to do to Medicaid:

The far-reaching nature of the proposal is similar to ideas Republicans in Congress have put forward for Medicare and has led some critics to wonder whether Governor Bush is providing a preview of the kind of health care system President Bush would like to see nationwide.

"This is all part of the scheme of privatizing all of government," said Karen Woodall, a longtime Florida lobbyist for social services.

Even if the President Bush who ushers us into the paradise of national health care privatization turns out to be President Jeb rather than President Dubya. (Don't know about you, but I can't hardly wait for 2008!)

It'd be a real service if some enterprising reporter tried poking around at the network of think tanks and consultancies responsible for creating Jeb's Medicaid plan, looking for overlaps with the Social Security privatization apparat. What are the odds that this thing hasn't been coordinated at a high level within the national GOP, and that Medicaid privatization is not in fact a well-designed stalking horse for Jeb's Presidential ambitions? Knowing its attention-impaired approach to stories like these, though, that poking-around will probably have to come from somewhere other than the Times: I wouldn't be surprised if this were the last we heard from the Paper of Record about the Florida Medicaid overhaul till it's become a foregone conclusion.

posted by michael  10:42:56 AM  
tell me about it []