ND United to Protect SS will hold a Press Conference in Fargo 5/10

[markus]

at 11 am at the Fargo Library.

Your truly has been nominated to represent overweight balding white gu, uh, I mean, the MIddle Class.

If you can't stop by and say howdy, watch for the news.

I hope Scott Hennen is there, so if he asks me a question I can call for any more questions from real reporters before we move onto the talk show hacks.

Alight, I probably shoudnt' do that. Should I?

[markus]

1. My remarks at the Press Conference

It was covered by Fox 10 and WDAY but I didn't have a chance to catch KVLY 11. That was your's truly in the bright yellow polo on Fox 10.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
I WAS BORN IN1957, WHICH MAKES ME TECHNICALLY THE VERY LAST OF THE BABY BOOM GENERATION. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY, BUT I’M NOT READY TO PANIC YET.
THE FACT IS, THE TRUST FUND IS SOLVENT UNTIL 2042 . I WILL BE 84 BY THE TIME 2042 TWO ROLLS AROUND.
I’M MUCH MORE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT A RUSH TO RADCIALLY RESTRUCTURE SOCIAL SECURITY WILL DO TO MY OWN RETIREMENT, AND THOSE OF THE BABY BOOMERS WHO WILL RETIRE BEFORE ME.
THOSE OF US RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS: A COLLEGE-EDUCATED, TWO EARNER HOUSEHOLD WITH TWO KIDS, A HOUSE IN SOUTH FARGO, TWO CARS AND BOAT—WE’RE ALREADY STRUGGLING TO PREPARE FOR OUR RETIREMENT.
I’M MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT MY 401K WILL BE WORTH WHEN I GET READY TO RETIRE. ALL OF THE BABY BOOM RETIREES WILL BE TRYING TO SELL THEIR INVESTMENTS TO A SHRINKING POOL OF BUYERS. FRANKLY, THERE IS NO WAY IN SUCH A MARKET THAT MY 401K IS GOING TO APPRECIATE AT THE HISTORIC RATE OF THE STOCK MARKET.
I’M MUCH MORE WORRIED ABOUT HOW MUCH I CAN SAVE FOR RETIREMENT, WHEN I HAVE KIDS TEN AND THIRTEEN WHO ARE FACING COLLEGE TUITION COSTS THAT GROW BY DOUBLE DIGITS VERY YEAR.
I’M MUCH MORE WORRIED ABOUT HOW MUCH I CAN SAVE FOR RETIREMENT, WHEN THE JUMP IN MY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM IS LARGER THAN MY ANNUAL COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.
ALL OF THESE ARE MUCH MORE OF A “REAL” RETIREMENT FUNDING CRISIS FOR MY FAMILY AND I.
AND THESE WORRIES EXCLUDE HAVING MY JOB SHIPPED OVER SEAS, OR HAVING SOMEONE IN MY FAMILY BECOME SERIOUSLY ILL, OR SOME OTHER CALAMITY.
THE FACT IS, PEOLE LIKE US—LIKE YOURSELVES—ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RELY ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR A GOOD FRACTION OF OUR RETIRENMENT INCOME.
I’M CONFIDENT THAT, WITH REASONABLE REFORMS, SOCIAL SECURITY CAN BE THERE FOR ME. BUT WITH BUSH’S RADICAL CHANGES IN THE SYTEM, THAT’S NO LONGER A CERTAINY.
I WAS A LOT MORE CONFIDENT IN THE 1990S WHEN THE GOVERNMENT WAS LAYING IN A SURPLUS TO HELP COVER THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE TRUST FUND.
IN A FEW SHORT YEARS, BUSH’S TAX CUTS ERASED THAT PART OF THE SECURITY FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY EQUATION.
FRANKLY I RESENT BUSH TAKING MY RETIREMENT MONEY AND GIVING IT AWAY IN TAX CUTS MOSLTY FOR THE WEALTHIESE FAMILIES IN AMERICA.
I RESENT BUSH CALLING TREASURY BILLS IN THE TRUST FUND “WORTHLESS IOUS”. THOSE IOUS ARE WHAT PAY FOR MAKING HIS TAX CUTS PERMANENT, AND THE MESSAGE IS: THEY’VE SPENT THAT BORROWED MONEY AND DON’T PLAN ON PAYING IT BACK.
THEY’VE TAKEN OUR RETIREMENT MONEY AND PUT IT IN THEIR POCKETS. AND THAT’S JUST WRONG.
WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT IS A TRANSPARENT ATTEMPT TO DO TO SOCIAL SECURITY WHAT CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN DOING TO OUR PENSION FUNDS FOR YEARS: RAID THE CASH AND GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE AT THE TOP.
THAT’S JUST WRONG.
IF PEOPLE LIKE US ARE GOING TO HOLD ON TO THE SECURITY IN SOCIAL SECURITY, THE PROGRAM WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO SEE SOME .
ARE THERE FEWER WORKERS SUPPORTING EACH RETIREE? NOT REALLY. SINCE AROUND 1960 WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS FULLY IMPLEMENTED, IT HAS BEEN HOVERING AT AROUND THREE POINT SOME ODD WORKERS PER RETIREE.
SO, WHAT HAS CHANGED? WELL WHEN SOCIAL SECURITY WAS IMPLEMENTED, THE AVERAGE CORPORATE EXECUTIVE EARNED AROUND 30 OR 40 TIMES WHAT THE AVERAGE EMPLOYEE EARNED. TODAY, THAT DISPARTY IS WELL OVER 200 TIMES WHAT THE AVEARGE WORKER MAKES.
IN 1983, THE NATION AS A WHOLE PAID SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES ON 90% OF ALL EARNED INCOME. THAT HAS DROPPED TO 85%, AS SALARIES AT THE TOP OF THE SCALE HAVE SKYROCKETED.
GIVEN THAT SORT OF CHANGE, LIFTING THE CAP ON SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES MAKES MORE SENSE THAN CUTTING BENEFITS. IT’S JUST FAIR.
I’M NOT SUGGESTING WE PUNISH PEOPLE FOR MAKING MONEY. I’M JUST SUGGESTING WE KEEP THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, GIVEN THE RADICAL REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME WE’VE SEEN IN THE PAST GENERATION.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT COMPANIES THAT OUTSOURCE JOBS OVERSEAS, AND WHETHER THEY SHOULDN’T BE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO MAKE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS ON THOSE OUTSOURCED JOBS FOR AS LONG AS THEIR PROFITING ON THOSE OUTSOURCED JOBS.
AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT ROLLING BACK THE TOP RANKS OF BUSH’S TAX CUTS—THOSE FOR THE VERY WEALTHIEST—TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE SURPLUS WE NEED TO KEEP THE PROMISE OF THOSE T-BILLS IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND.
IF WE DON’T MAKE JUST ¼ OF THOSE TAX CUTS PERMANENT, WE ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT IN THE TRUST FUND FOR THE REST OF THE CENTURY.
NO ONE STANDING UP AGAINST THE BUSH’S RADICAL PLAN TO CUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY INSURANCE PROGRAM IS SUGGESTING THAT SOCIAL SECURITY CAN NEVER BE CHANGED.
BUT THERE ARE CHANGES THAT MAKE SENSE, AND THERE ARE CHANGES THAT DON’T MAKE SENSE.
THE BUSH CHANGES JUST DON’T MAKE SENSE.