Will Democrats Get A Spine On Social Security?

[Itsthetruth]

The State of Our Union 2005
Mark Dudzic, National Organizer
Labor Party

The attack on Social Security is clearly following the same pattern as the distortions that led up to the invasion of Iraq:
— Create a false sense of crisis.
— Repeat your lies often enough so that people begin to believe them.
— Present your course of action as the only possible solution to the crisis.

Before the debate has even begun, the idea that private accounts will provide a pot of gold for every American has been thoroughly discredited. Three months ago, respected economist Dean Baker issued his "No Economist Left Behind" challenge: show me any combination of capital gains and dividend yields that would produce the 6.5% rate of return that Bush has promised private accounts will achieve over 75 years. To date, no one has taken him up on his challenge (www.cepr.net).

But Bush was able to invoke a number of Democrats to bolster his argument that Social Security is in crisis, including former Senator Breaux, former President Clinton and (dead) Senator Moynihan. It is clear that Bush is counting on the Democrats to follow their typical pattern of bargaining against themselves, letting their opponents dictate the terms of the debate and giving away half of the pie and calling it victory. And the real losers will be the American people.

Here's the real problem: most working people in America are facing a retirement that is less secure than it was a generation ago. Fewer and fewer of us are covered by defined benefit pension plans that, like Social Security, pay a guaranteed lifetime benefit. Entire industries are using the ruse of bankruptcy to skip out on their pension and benefit obligations. Workers have invested their retirement savings in the stock market, only to have them looted by Enron-style corporate criminals and plundered by exorbitant fees charged by Wall Street firms. Social Security has been the one assured benefit that working people could count on. Its privatization will be a disaster for millions.

And this is the real tragedy that we are facing: even if the Democrats get a spine and we win the fight against the privatization of Social Security, the state of our union will be much worse next year than it is this year.

We need to fight back against George Bush's attacks on our children's future. We need to challenge the Democrats to act like a real opposition party. But, most importantly, we need to build a new vision of politics based on the needs of the overwhelming majority of Americans who work for a living.

http://www.thelaborparty.org/a_state.html

[bryant69]

1. I don't think you should write off the democrats just yet

There's a paltry few who support his plan (unfortunately my representative is one of them), and he is calling on the words of Democrats who are out of politics (Clinton, Monyihan).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Itsthetruth]

2. What About Bush's Back-Up Plan?

Most Democrat and some nervous Republican members of Congress may stop Bush's privatization scheme from becoming law. However, they very well might agree to alternative legislation that will in fact undermine and reduce the social security benefits for elderly Americans. And they will call such a compromise a victory! After all, they did stop privitization.

The Bush government has a "back-up" plan in reserve in the event his so-called "private investment accounts" plan falters. Plan "B" has not been widely publicized and few Democratic politicians have commented on those proposals.

Yesterday George Bush said: "I'm willing to work with anybody, Republican or Democrat or independent, who wants to come in and discuss ways to solve the problem. Everything is on the table except raising payroll taxes."

So what are the other proposals that Bush is willing to work with Democrats on to "solve" this bogus problem?

In his State of the Union speech Bush said: "Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table."

So there you have it.

Cut benefit increases.

Raise the retirement age.

Penalize those who retire "early".

Reduce benefits.

It would be good if Democratic Party leaders, beginning with Howard Dean, spoke out loudly and clearly against ALL of these proposals to undermine social security.

Will they? That depends upon what we do. If a huge mass movement of millions is organized to defend our social security we can beat back ALL of Bush's proposals to weaken social security. It must be big, it must be highly visible, it must be persistent and it must take it to the streets. Simple letters and e-mails won't accomplish much at all.

A March on Washington would be a good start. The labor movement could help lead and organize it if the Democratic Party won't.

Does anyone have other suggestions on how we could build such a mass movement and what kinds of activities it would engage in to educate and mobilize the public?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3061139

[bryant69]

5. You might be right--they might cave on some of these issues

I woudl hope they wouldn't. Personally I think the answer is to raise the payroll cap to $200,000 or something like that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bunkerbuster1]

9. Why aren't we linking the minimum wage to this?

for God's sake, that'd raise a ton of SS revenue, and it'd be popular. The Dems really need to insist that it be raised to $7.50 (which would keep it shy of its peak value from the late 60s, which was over $8/hour in 2005 dollars) and link it henceforth to a reliable cost-of-living index, AND that the cap be lifted at least at an accellerated rate over the next decade.

That'd cover most of the gap. And then (and only then) we can talk about possibly reining in some of the benefit increases over time.

But not one fuckin' PENNY should be piratized, and I will propose that any Dem who suggests otherwise, ANY Dem who wants to shake hands with the Devil and "negotiate" with the theiving scum in the White House on SS, should be forced to sit on a rusty chainsaw.

[NC_Nurse]

3. Same old dog and pony show:

"The attack on Social Security is clearly following the same pattern as the distortions that led up to the invasion of Iraq:
— Create a false sense of crisis.
— Repeat your lies often enough so that people begin to believe them.
— Present your course of action as the only possible solution to the crisis."

Works every time!

AAAAAAAUUUUUGH!

[annabanana]

4. not sure about Breaux... but Clinton and Moynihan

never said that "personal accounts" should REPLACE Social Security.. They were meant to supplement them. And the amounts weren't to be taken out of the SS funds...
Don't buy it kids...It's snake oil.

[piratelt]

6. SS

First off why does everyone like SS so much? Poor people who depend on it almost entirely will not live well off it. Don't you want to find something that gains more interest like a IRA or 401K?

Also, Moynihian did want to privatize:

Something must change, Moynihan is convinced. The "veto groups," as he calls them, cannot prevail. Young people, especially, have lost faith. They wonder why they can't take care of their own retirements with stock and bond investments, rather than trusting a system that either is headed either for bankruptcy or will provide paltry or even negative returns on their contributions.

"The energy in social policy right now is to privatize," Moynihan says. "Any effort to keep Social Security will have to acknowledge the people who want to get rid of it, the people who are saying that government is taking your money and cheating you."

[Itsthetruth]

7. Without It Millions Of Elderly Would Suffer.

And without it the elderly will live much worse. Just look what it was like for elderly people before social security. It's a guaranteed "nest egg". And the employers pay one half of all money paid into the fund. That's what big business really hates. They not only want to eliminate private pension plans as a "fringe" benefit, they also want to end their payments into the social security trust fund. I think this should be pointed out over and over again.

If someone working can afford to invest in and wishes to risk their surplus money in the market fine. But, there are no guarantees.

Is anyone in Congress proposing to lower the age at which you can collect full social security back down to 65 years old? That's what ought to be proposed along with a signficant increase in benefits. We can afford it. And lifting the cap on ALL income taxed for social security will make the fund solvent well into the next century. And the employers tax could always be increased to generate hundreds of billions in additional revenues.

[Cleita]

11. Look at what has happened to the elderly in Britain, who

have the same piratization plan that the Bushies are trying to force on us. Most are penniless and living in poverty. The irony is that their government plans to fix their system by instituting our present system. So why must we go back to the future and get their failed system rammed down our collective throats?

[newyawker99]

8. Hi piratelt!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[American Tragedy]

13. If one wants an IRA or 401K, they can open one easily.

To create another one is rather redundant, since most people already have private accounts. The entire point of SS was that it is independent of the fluctuations of the market.

One part of this that bothers me is the passive-aggressive aspect of it. If they want to eliminate or reduce SS, then do it. Give the payroll taxes to the workers and let them invest it if they want. But if you're not either doing that, or using it to directly supplement the retirement of the current elderly population as originally intended, it's merely forced savings. It's disingenuous to claim that this gives workers more freedom.

[Cleita]

10. Apparently only Barbara Boxer and a few others. This is a time

when we need all our Democrats, including Governors to come forth and object to the Bush administration's even touching SS and Medicare. So where are they?

[Itsthetruth]

12. Democratic Senator Calls For Sacrifices!

Just check out the Senators websites. Many are Missing In Action. They have not yet commented on the Bush's privatization scheme and some who are against privatization have indicated they are willing to work with Republicans to consider other "reforms" proposed by Bush that will cut benefits and/or change eligibility requirements!

Democratic Senator Conrad has gone so far as to call for "sacrifices" by the American people in order to "save" social security! This Senator flew with Bush on Air Force One to discuss social security on his trip to North Dakota.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Finding Common Ground on Social Security Reform by Senators Kent Conrad (Democrat, North Dakota) and Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican, South Carolina.

01/05/05

"With a renewed debate over the future of Social Security now underway, Republicans and Democrats alike need to begin by setting aside our differences and focusing on the common ground between us.

As two policymakers -- one from each party -- who have been committed to the well-being of Social Security throughout our careers, we have agreed that the following common principles should guide our deliberations going forward:

First, Social Security must be preserved.

Second, it is also clear that Social Security must be strengthened.

Third, strengthening Social Security will require tough choices and, if done in a responsible manner, can greatly improve our nations fiscal outlook. To address Social Securitys funding challenges, all options should be on the table for discussion.

In 1983, President Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill worked together across party lines to protect Social Security -- setting an example for future generations. We need to do the same thing now.

Both parties have been far too hesitant to ask the American people to make sacrifices for the common good. It is our belief the American people, if asked in a responsible manner, will embrace the hard choices necessary to save Social Security for younger workers and future generations.

It is time to address this problem. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened. But we need to be candid about the costs and willing to make the tough choices that real reform will require. If Republicans and Democrats can agree on this, we can save a vital program for generations to come."

http://conrad.senate.gov/~conrad/releases/04/12/2005105A39.html

[Cocoa]

14. welcome to DU

but stop the anti-dem spam.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3061139

[Itsthetruth]

15. Thanks, But Don't Surrender!

Thanks for the welcome but don't surrender to the Bushites and their enablers!

Senator Conrad is the top ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee that oversees Social Security system. So when he joins with a Republican Senator in calling for "sacrifices" I worry. So should you.

I'm sorry that you consider any criticism Senator Conrad's smooching with George Bush and calls for "sacrifices" to "save" social security undemocratic.

If Senator Conrad proposes ending the tax cuts for the rich and increasing the tax on employers to help fund social security I would support that. But, I doubt very much that's what he has in mind when he calls for "sacrifices".

Senator Conrad did say "I've accepted the President's invitation to accompany him to Fargo and I will be there to welcome him. We'll have a chance to discuss Social Security. As I've made clear, there are places where I agree with the President, and there are places I have concern with the President's plan."

If some Democrats roll over and play dead, or worse, support some of the cuts proposed by Bush, am I suppose to roll over and play dead?

Perhaps you'd like to spell out what sacrifices you think the average American should make to "protect" social security.

I for one am against any and all social security cuts proposed by the Bush government and if any Democratic politicians surrender and go along with Bush on any of them I hope you will join me and oppose them.

If someone attacks you as "anti-Dem" for doing that, don't worry about it. I don't. That will probably be the political line of the DLC as they lay the groundwork for the surrender to Bush and company.

[Cocoa]

17. you're scrambling to highlight the worst dems

stooping to including ones like Clinton and Moynihan who aren't even in office.

And ignoring the active party leaders who are surprising everyone including the whores and the republicans by starting this debate out so strong.

[unlawflcombatnt]

16. Republicans Intimidate Media on Social Security.

_____________________________
The RNC has threatened FCC action against TV stations exposing Bush's deceptive Social Security plans. The letter was intended as an indirect threat that their FCC licenses were in jeopardy. South Bend television stations received the letter from RNC attorney Michael Bayes, stating "As an FCC licensee...this letter places you on notice..." The following is a copy of the story by James Wensits from the South Bend Tribune from February 5, 2005:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/02/05/local.20050205-sbt-MWKA-A1-RNC_asks_stations_to.sto

"RNC asks stations to kill 'false TV ad'
MoveOn.org defends accuracy of Social Security spot.

By JAMES WENSITS
Tribune Political Writer

SOUTH BEND -- At least part of the Social Security debate focused on the 2nd Congressional District again Friday, as the Republican National Committee sent letters to local television stations asking them not to air what it calls a "false TV ad" promoted by MoveOn.org.

Washington, D.C.-based MoveOn.org immediately issued a statement defending the accuracy of its ad, which began airing on local stations Tuesday and which is critical of the president's plan to revamp Social Security.

The RNC letter drew a mixture of responses. One local station executive said he viewed the tone of the letter as "threatening." Another said he planned to investigate a statement in the ad and might decide to pull the spot if he found it to be misleading.

The national ad, titled "Working Retirement," debuted on local stations Tuesday.

"It has come to our attention that your station is currently airing, or may be asked to air, a false advertisement sponsored by a political organization known as MoveOn.org," said the RNC letter sent to local stations on Friday.

"The advertisement in question falsely and maliciously makes reference to 'George Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts of up to 46 percent to pay for private accounts ...' "

In his State of the Union address, the president said that "Social Security will not change in any way" for Americans 55 and older."

The RNC letter said that "what MoveOn.org calls 'Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts' is actually a plan that would hold starting Social Security benefits steady in purchasing power, rather than allowing them to nearly double over the next 75 years as they are projected to do under the current benefit formula."

The letter was signed by RNC Deputy Counsel Michael Bayes.

Jim Behling, general manager for WNDU-TV, said he is neither afraid nor cowed by getting a letter from a lawyer at the RNC, but may pull the spot if he determines that it is inaccurate. The ad contract calls for the spot to end its run on Sunday, according to Behling.

"It's about what's fair," said Behling, adding, "If we made the wrong decision based on insufficient information, then we have to correct ourselves."

Behling said he has reviewed documentation supplied by MoveOn.org in support of the ad, and said the 46 percent figure seems to apply to people who will retire in 2075, and therefore haven't yet been born.

He said he plans to ask MoveOn.org if the 46 percent "applies to anybody living today" and, if not, may decide to pull the spot.

According to supporting documents supplied to the stations by MoveOn.org, the plan which serves as the model for the president's proposal would cut benefits because it changes the basis on which benefits would be calculated from wage levels to consumer price levels.

Based on Social Security Administration data, a worker born in 1977 who earned average wages and retired in 2042 would see benefits 26 percent lower than under the current benefit structure, $14,432 a year instead of $19,423 in 2004 dollars. An individual who retired in 2075 would receive monthly benefits 46 percent lower than under the current structure, the documents said.

Tom Matzzie, Washington, D.C., director of MoveOn.org, said in a statement issued Friday that the information referred to in the spot is based on an analysis performed by the chief actuary at the Social Security Administration, and said his organization stands by the ad.

"Instead of threatening TV stations and trying to infringe on the free-speech rights of MoveOn.org," said Matzzie, the administration should "come clean" and explain how big benefit cuts will be for future retirees, how much new debt will be required and how much financial services corporations will profit from the proposal.

Kevin Sargent, vice president and general manager for WSJV-TV, said he viewed the RNC letter as threatening.

The last two paragraphs of the letter said:

"As an FCC licensee, you have a responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to oversee and protect the integrity of the American marketplace of ideas, and to avoid broadcasting deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously and I urge you to decline to broadcast this advertisement.

"This letter places you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading. Your station should act responsibly and refrain from airing this advertisement."

"When a letter says 'this letter places you on notice,' " Sargent said, "that's kind of threatening."

Sargent said the letter didn't say that the RNC intended to go after the station's license, but "that kind of tactic is done to make you think it's possible."

Asked if he planned to pull the ad, Sargent said he had just begun to investigate, noting, "It's Friday afternoon."

Sargent said that in the meanwhile, he did not plan to suspend the ad, which is scheduled to run through Monday.

Todd Schurz, president and general manager of WSBT-TV, said it is not the role of the station to make political judgments, and to do so would be "grossly inappropriate."

"Our role is to be sure that the laws and regulations are followed and that the public has access to its own airwaves," Schurz said.

Schurz said the station began an investigation after receiving the RNC letter Friday afternoon but did not know when it would be completed.

"These things take a little time," Schurz said, adding that there was no intent to suspend the ad in the meantime. The spot is scheduled to run through Monday on WSBT-TV, whose parent company, Schurz Communications, also owns The Tribune."


The Bush administration is continuing it's efforts to completely suppress the media. I urge everyone to write to your Congress and the local media about this story. Also, I would recommend republishing this article everywhere possible.

Mike

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________