BOOK CLUB Feb: Running On Empty

[crispini]

Per this poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x561

I give you the February book: "Running On Empty - How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It" Pete Petersen.

I would also like to direct your attention to this discussion of the March book, a change of procedures, and a call for some help:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x1077

I just got this a couple of days ago so not much to say here. Anyone else got it yet?

[Skinner]

1. I just put this on the homepage. (nt)

[crispini]

4. Thanks! nt

[stray cat]

2. I liked the book but I bet it generates some controversy.

I'm looking forward to some of the discussion. I'll try to post more later as I'm at work.

[Coexist]

3. Not far enough into it to discuss yet

I will check in with some thoughts later this week. The book threads seem to move at a much slower pace than the rest of DU (to put it mildly!) I hope the front page exposure will generate some more interest here. I don't have a local book group and got way too excited to find this forum. I need a life!

[crispini]

5. I don't have a local book group either.

All the ones I know of locally are focussed on fiction and fluff. Honestly, I'm not all that interested in reading Oprah specials. I can read that on my own.

[Coexist]

9. I agree

Fiction is on my time.

I like that this is partisan non-fiction and makes me read books I "should" read but always seem to skip in favor of lighter fare. I usually read history books for non-fiction.

[erpowers]

6. Participating in the Book Club

I posted these questions in another post, but I will post them here since people may know more about the book club here. Can anyone who posts DU be a part of the book club? If so what does the book club do as far as writing about the book, giving one's opinion about the book? How does one participate in deciding what books will be read? Also when do you start discussing the book?

[crispini]

7. In order:

1. Yes.
2. The Book Club guidelines are here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x365
3. See #2.
4. This is the thread for the Febuary book, and we'll be discussing it as soon as some of us start reading it! :hi:

hope that helps! :thumbsup:

[Lithos]

8. Looked interseting

Bought the book, will at least follow along with the thread, but not sure how often I will be able to join in though.

L-

[Coexist]

10. All right - I am on chapter 4

And I must say, I have taken a highlighter to "Running on Empty" already.

In fact, I went back to the preface and did some highlighting there too.

Although I don't wholeheartedly endorse everything he has to say, I see the logic behind his projections and the importance of bringing these issues to the table (and to the public for debate).

I am very interested in getting to the end of this book - the chapter titles are very intriguing!

So far, I feel like this should be on the required reading list of every politician in office today. He really doesn't pull any punches with his own party- and some of the stuff he says about the Dems is true. We'll see what happens after a few more chapters.

[stray cat]

11. I need to re-read it.

I learned alot about the entire system - both democrats and republicans. I also appreciated the different options. The author did't strike me as having a particular agenda except highlighting how we got to this point.

[crispini]

12. Damn, you read fast!

I'll crack it open tonight.

[Lithos]

17. Am on Chap. 2

I do not agree with several things he says, particularly in some of his comments about Dems which I think are left over partisan digs on his part, but I do think that he is right about the issues of deficit and irresponsible tax cuts. I've found I've been able to overlook his few partisan digs and focus on what he has had to say. Interesting.

L-

[crispini]

23. Yeah, this guy seems like his goal is to be stand-up,

sort of independent and honest:

During most of my service, I hahve been careful not to subscribe to party dogma that violated my common sense, nor assume that a constituency is sacrosanct just because the party says so, nor believe that the other party is automatically the enemy. Yet that's just the problem. Increasingly, those who serve my party are subject to all of these pressures. And I know many Democrats who feel just as I do about their own party. (p.4)

Well, I don't feel like that about my own party yet I DO think that the neocons ARE "automatically the enemy" but I can certainly distinguish between the neocons and regular Republicans. Anyway I like the spirit of that quote.

[stray cat]

25. I do too. He makes a good effort at being fair and balanced.

In a democracy it is too easy for politicians to "bribe" their constituencies and avoid scally disciplined decisions. Bush was a great example of spending money to bribe corporations and farmers (for his first 4 years).

[crispini]

13. So I'm reading the introduction

and I'm already, like, "Aaaaaah! What a mess we're in! Ok, this is one I need to send copies of to all my elected leaders." Damn, if only I had more money to DO stuff like that!

[Coexist]

14. My sentiments exactly (spoiler - I guess)

The last chapter was the toughest to get through. Not because the reading level was difficult, but because the content was the hard truth. Although I don't agree with his fix priorities, I assume (because I am making the assumption that his credentials are what he says they are - I checked out concordcoalition.org and they seem to be)that he knows how to help straighten up the financial mess in which we have placed ourselves.

I like that he consistently takes the underprivileged into consideration in all of his proposals. If he had that idiotic "bootstrap" mentality, I would not have been able to get through the book - or would have just tossed it aside after doing so.

Even though I am a liberal, I do agree that many get benefits who do not deserve them. But I am also pragmatic enough to know that no program (whether publicly or privately funded) will be free from abuse. There are people out there who live for that sh*t, sadly.

I can see many upper middle-class American seniors crying that they deserve every benefit a poor person does. They shouldn't be penalized for being successful and saving. But I strongly feel that is why we have nest eggs - not to hand them to our children at our death, but to pay our way in life and not leave the public debt to our children.

Lots to think about - any other thoughts?

[crispini]

15. Well, I think

you read waaaaay faster than me, or at least have had a bit more time than I have had in the last few days. :7

I understand just from the title that his basic assumption is that BOTH political parties are at fault. That both R's and D's have their head in the sand when it comes to 1) the horrible budget deficit and 2) the trade deficit.

Well, we've all seen, with Shrubya's "great new idea," that the Republicans are STILL at fault -- the social security "fix" that isn't going to fix anything.

So do you agree with Peterson's premise that D's WERE at fault? And, are they STILL at fault, or do we start to see some signs that they might have some realistic ideas about getting us out of this mess?

Not exactly a question ABOUT the book, but a question in the general area of the book. :)

[Coexist]

16. I do read quickly - especially when the subject interests me

And I did read for a couple of hours when I probably should have been doing something else!

Yes - he blames both parties for our problems.

He discusses the "supply-side" Republican phenomenon and how it doesn't fit with any type of reality. Cutting taxes temporarily at the beginning of a recession CAN jump start the economy - but it should be AT the beginning and TEMPORARY. Neither test was met by Bush or Reagan with their cuts, and therefore the desired results of a brisk economy did not come to light.

The Dems are blamed for the "credit card" mentality of the government over the past 40 years. I do agree that there was some reckless spending - I don't know which side of the aisle was totally to blame - I am sure we are at fault for some of it, at least. We were in charge. But that doesn't necessarily wash with the surplus of the Clinton years - so I am not totally sold on that. It still angers me that I got those stupid $300 checks from *. It was spent money as far as I was concerned - I would have rather had it go into the "lockbox", ya know?

I do agree that the IOU on Social Security is a recipe for disaster and do not want to see it coming out in the form of payroll tax for my kids. I do not want them to inherit this mess. I am already helping support my mother, and don't want them to have to be in my shoes when they are trying to raise their kids.

One interesting point he made was that the Dems tried to fix Welfare - which helped only the very poor - instead of Social Security and Medicare, which often helps people who often fall into the middle and upper-middle class.

Some of his ideas for the fix, are doable - but will be painful, politically. I like some of his health insurance ideas (I will wait for you to read it instead of trying to nutshell it here.)

Tort reform was on his agenda - but I don't see that as being as evil as corporations with no accountability. I am willing to see a few frivolous lawsuits to preserve the right for the little guy to make the big company pay for their inhumanity and greed at the cost of life or a lifetime of pain.

But there is so much more in the book - however Maxine Waters is on CSPan now - so I am going to take a break!

[hfojvt]

18. the $300 checks were pocket change

they are such a small part of the total tax cut as to be almost completely insignificant. They were just a smoke-screen for the bigger checks that went out to people like the Waltons, Bill Gates, and Ben Affleck, which, bless his heart, he pointed out himself at the National Convention. They also were the one part of the bill which actually provided some economic stimulation.

[crispini]

19. I was surprised to read

that this guy started out R and is apparently realizing the error of his ways, esp. WRT supply-side economics.

I enjoyed this bit: (emphasis mine)

This tax cut ideology is not fact-driven. It is faith-driven. The elect simply "know" they are right, untroubled by their changing, competing, and even contradictory rationales... Norquist .... says "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Norquist and other extremists should be careful what they wish for. A small government run by libertarians is not the likely outcome if a shredded social safety net leaves million of elders in poverty, or if mounting debts cause the economy to crash. Remember whence the New Deal came.

[Coexist]

20. I don't know if it seemed to me that he

saw the error of his ways, so much as he refuses to join in the new Republican category. He seems to be a solid Republican, but not a neo-conservative.

He discusses the demonization of more traditional Republicans quite extensively "When conservatives of manifest intelligence and ability (like OMB head David Stockman or CEA chief Martin Feldstein) resigned from the administration over their disagreements about deficits, the die-hards vilified them."

"by fostering a mood of emergency, they can shun compromise and punish mavericks."

"I've seen Republicans get blackballed for merely observing, in point of fact, that national investment is limited by national savings; that large deficits typically reduce national savings; or that higher deficits eventually trigger higher interest rates."
"I've seen other Republicans get pilloried for picking on the wrong constituency - for suggesting, perhaps, that a tax loophole for a corporation or a wealthy retiree is no different, ethically or economically, than a dubious welfare program."

Ouch.

and on how Dems can nail them, my personal favorite, "Republicans chop checks to widows so CEOs can get tax-free golden parachutes" is a claim that, if the Democrats could ever make it stick would be a free ticket to electoral victory. And the GOP knows it."

[CitySky]

21. my response to that inane Norquist quote

has always been: without government-provided or -regulated infrastructure, most of us would have no water in that bathtub to begin with. ;)

[crispini]

22. That's great!

That quote's just sick, isn't it? WTF does Norquist think we're gonna do without a gvmt of any sort? Is he an anarchist?

[crispini]

24. So, I'm on page 21, reading about means-testing Social Security...

Sounds like a good idea to me. What's the REAL argument against it?

[stray cat]

26. If you pay in you should benefit is the dogma.

I think it is an effort to make S.S. look fair and to not look like an entitlement for average or needy Americans or a special tax on the wealthy. They didn't want social security to look like a welfare program of any type. However, with the current cap and special tax breaks for the wealthy I no longer buy it. Where would you start the means-test and on what basis do we evaluate it? I like a means test but there are some hard details that would have to get worked out.

[crispini]

27. Well, I have to admit, I'm dreadfully ignorant about this whole

social security issue as far as the big picture goes. I've read enough about the Bush plan to realize that it doesn't really fix the problem -- taking more money out of a failing program isn't going to fix the program, duh! And it also makes us even more in debt with the startup costs. But I'd be hard-pressed to come up with an alternative, which is why I asked the question. Why *isn't* means-testing a good idea? People who are retired and getting beaucoup retirement income from annuities or investments, IMO, don't need this little mite of money from us and should be cut off from it. I mean, jeez, the Fed Gov already knows your income-- it's on your tax return. Why not just look at that number and if it's higher than X, no Social Security for you?

[stray cat]

29. Personally I would love to see it done.

It was interesting Bush actually mentioned being open to a means test in the state of the union - just one word in passing. However, I don't think the republicans would do it even though I saw a poll that suggested many wealthy Americans were willing to support it.

[crispini]

30. Anyone else wanna weigh in on means testing for Social Security?

I think I might go try to stir something up in GD-- betcha I'll get lots of opinions there! :evilgrin:

[crispini]

28. I'm on Chap. 2 now

and I just had to post this: "To say that it doesn't matter if Americans own their own economies is like saying that there is no difference between being a landlord and being a sharecropper." (43)

Pithy and drives the point home quite well. I like it!

[CrispyQ]

31. I'm on Chapter 3: The Challenge at Home: The Aging of America

Quite an eye opener!! He states that in all of human history, people aged 65 or more never amounted to more than 2-3% of the population. In America today that figure is 12%. By 2040 it will be 20%, perhaps 25%. What makes this really stunning is when he states that my 2040, the "nursing-home crowd will outnumber the dorm room crowd by nearly 4 to 1." That really put a whole different spin on the social security/Medicare thing.

Did anyone see Bill Maher on Larry King last night? One of Bill's points was that it isn't SS that is the big problem, it's Medicare & it's because older people tend to suffer from so many more health problems -- many/most of them life style related.

I find this book hard to read cuz I don't like economics & it paints a very depressing future if we continue on this path. I just don't see our elected officials taking any drastic action required to make the future better & I believe we really are headed toward a health policy of "Don't Get Sick!"

That said, talk about incentive to get in shape now!! I would encourage everyone to start any fitness/diet program you've been considering. Get your weight under control, get off your butt & exercise (don't forget the huge benefits of strength training!) & get any of your life style excesses under control.

on edit: That means ME!!!

[crispini]

32. I'm also having a hard time getting into it

for the same reasons. I don't like economics and I don't like being depressed! That said, let's keep plugging away, that's why we're here, right, to learn something. :) That said, I might skip to the "here's how to fix it" chapter next -- I wanna make sure it's got a (sort of) happy ending! :7

Oh, and WORD about the getting in shape. Me too. Maybe we should both go join the Fitness group. ;)

[CrispyQ]

35. I added the fitness group to my forums.

Some real die-hards over there, but maybe that will inspire me, even if the "Don't Get Sick" plan doesn't!

Thanks again, Crispini, for the reminder that there are a whole lotta other forums on DU!!

:yourock:

[crispini]

37. Ok, great, now you're gonna make me go over there too, eh?

Grooooan. ;)

[hfojvt]

43. Well, I resemble that remark

As an economics major, I usually get into economics texts. However, I also decided to skip to the end because I got sick of his hidden Republican rhetoric. For example:
" excoriated Bush for his tax cuts, the four leading 'centrists' (Kerry, Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman) refused to roll most of them back except for 'the rich' or the 'wealthiest' Americans. This means that most of the revenue loss would remain." p. 19

Actually, I remember from the campaign that almost all of them were also proposing more tax cuts. However, it is the last line there that I take issue with. I do not have exact numbers, but I believe the 80-20 split is fairly accurate. That is, if the tax cut for the top 20% was eliminated, the Government would get back 80% of the lost revenue. And, political bottom line, by only reversing the tax cut at the top, over 80% of voters would no longer have a monetary incentive to vote aginst the Democrats.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Coexist]

34. I like the grovelbot

it was sent yesterday!

On the book - most economic books use dire futures to get their point across. One thing I liked about this one, was that he does remind us, several times in fact, that these are all projections, not predictions.

After the housing market collapses, who knows what new inventive way Americans will find to overvalue something.

And I also noticed that he mentions Medicare as the real crisis - that Social Security is full of IOUs from that (and other) programs.

Did you get to the the issue of Italy and their aging yet? No wonder the Pope hates birth control!!

[crispini]

36. Ok, I skipped to the part about How We Fix It

Because I couldn't deal with any more of the We Have A Horrible Problem stuff. I already KNOW that.

So, I'm interested in comparing and contrasting Peterson's approach to Social Security with Shrub's. Peterson and Shrub seem to agree that one component of the fix is price-indexing instead of wage-indexing. That sounds OK to me. However, I gather that Peterson would have a problem with Shrub's whole concept of private accounts. "... some policymakers suggest allowing people to redirect a portion of their payroll taxes from Social Security to personal accounts. But this is a no-win shell game." (p. 201)

So -- am I right so far? What else am I missing? And, btw, may I say how PERFECT the phrase "shell game" is to describe what Shrub is doing? We need to get that out there more. That's the first I've heard of it!

[Coexist]

38. He seems to like Australia's plan

where they have a required savings account. It is then your money to spend after retirement. He doesn't mention, however, if it is doled out monthly - or you just get a lump sum.

I don't know much about how it works over there - does anyone else?

That does seem to be his fix. I agree with you that he doesn't recommend *s plan for Social Security - and neither, I am happy to add, does Greenspan as of yesterday.

So there is a motion out there to add "shell game" to our framing. Any seconds?

[crispini]

39. Greenspan too?

Wow, that should put a spoke in his wheels... :evilgrin:

[Coexist]

40. He says, phase in slowly and watch the markets carefully

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7649963

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Wednesday he has always supported fully funding Social Security, but that that was difficult under current financing rules

Appearing before the Senate Banking Committee, the Federal Reserve chairman said he thinks the Bush administration's idea to let workers invest some Social Security money themselves is a good thing. But he added that any move in that direction must be done in a "cautious, gradual way" because no one knows how financial markets would react.

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2956985

[Coexist]

41. I forgot to add ..snip.. and put quotes on the above

post - I was in a hurry - sorry.

[Coexist]

42. Krugman weighs in on privatization - very long, sorry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3147044

snip

The answer is, medium-sized. As you can see in the chart, the aging of the population will cause Social Security spending to rise from its current level of 4.2 percent of GDP to a little over 6 percent by 2030, at which point it will stabilize. If demography were the only factor driving rising Medicare spending, it would rise in roughly the same proportion, from 2.7 to around 4 percent of GDP. So if demography were the whole story, we'd be looking at an eventual demography-driven rise in spending of between 3 and 3.5 percent of GDP by 2030, and no further increase after that. That's not a trivial increase, but it's also not overwhelming; a tax increase big enough to cover that rise in spending would still leave overall taxation in the United States well below the average for other advanced countries.

snip

When they aren't warning that only privatization can save us from doom, privatizers often make their case with the argument that people can do better investing their own money than the deal they get from Social Security. Here's a classic example of the genre: during the 2000 campaign, then-candidate Bush urged his listeners to "consider this simple fact: even if a worker chose only the safest investment in the world, an inflation-adjusted US government bond, he or she would receive twice the rate of return of Social Security." Vice President Cheney made a similar comparison, although he spoke about investing in stocks rather than bonds, just a few weeks ago.

As I pointed out at the time Mr. Bush made his remarks:
That's an amazing fact; it's even more amazing when you realize that
Kotlikoff and Burns offer a privatization plan that doesn't try to fudge the issue of transition costs. They call for a 12 percent national sales tax to pay benefits to current retirees and older workers. This tax would gradually be reduced as the beneficiaries of the current system died off, but it would remain high for a long time. That should give you an idea of what a responsible privatization scheme would entail.

snip

Such schemes come wrapped in fine phrases about the "ownership society," but stripped down to their essence they are equivalent to an investment adviser telling you that you won't have enough money when you retire, but that you should make up for this shortfall not by saving more but by borrowing a lot of money, investing it, and trusting in capital gains.

snip

Privatizers hate it when you talk about fees—about the fact, for example, that the much-touted Chilean system has administrative costs about twenty times those of Social Security, or that according to Britain's Pensions Commission, "providers' charges" in that country's privatized system reduce the size of retirement nest eggs by between 20 and 30 percent. But when we're talking about the narrow equity premium produced by realistic expectations of future yields, fees become a central issue.

snip

If Bush-style privatization actually goes through, the end game is fairly predictable: it's what is happening in Britain now. A couple of decades from now, it will be obvious to everyone that the returns on private accounts have fallen far short of expectations, and that America is about to experience a resurgence of poverty among the elderly. There will be irresistible demands for the government to call off cuts in benefit levels. (Remember, the over-sixty-five population will be an even larger share of the electorate than it is now.) And the result will be to make the fiscal outlook much worse than it would have been without privatization: the government will have borrowed trillions of dollars with the promise of future budget savings, but those savings will never materialize.

[crispini]

44. Good stuff, thanks!

So, privitization is clearly not the way to go. The author clearly agrees.

Any thoughts on pegging rises to prices instead of wages, as the author suggests? I've heard different opinions about this.

I'm still picking up the Medicare chapter and putting it down. Jeez, I'd better get cracking, I have like three days to finish this. :evilgrin:

[stray cat]

46. I hate to see rises matching prices instead of wages.

It is basically a benefit cut. However, the method and raional the author proposes makes sense. I'm still too mad at Bush for his tax breaks to corporations and wealthy Americans - I want them to sacrifice some of their tax break as well.

I do like the idea of some sort of mandatory retirement plan perhaps like 401K as a supplement to social security with the lower incomes getting it supplemented by the government. I could go for a temporary matching of benefits to price index with something like this. What do you think? Does a mandatory retirement plan infringe to much on freedom for most Americans? I know I like my 401K.

[crispini]

47. You know how weak-willed we all are.

Hell, I'm pretty good with the 401k most years but I managed to get myself into a little trouble with a credit card (home renovations and an untimely vacation, heh) and at the moment I'm not contributing ANYTHING to my 401k in the name of paying off the damn credit card.

Yep, I'd be for the mandatory thingy, all the way. :)

[stray cat]

48. Good luck with the credit card.

They can really nail you with those interest rates - hope they aren't too bad. If its any consolation the financial "experts" say to pay off credit cards before contributing to 401Ks unless you get matching funds from work.

I really would like to see supplemental retirement programs for everyone and I would support that they be mandatory. I need to read that part of the book again.

[Coexist]

50. Crispini - I just got back from a town hall meeting

on Social Security with Bill Nelson (D) Florida.

I asked him about the wage/price index issue (just for you!) and here is his response:

"we have pegged it to wages for the seventy years it has been in existence, and it has worked. We have saved Social Security before, with a bipartisan effort by President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neal. If we uncouple it from wages and attach it to the price index, over the course of a decade, we will see benefits decrease."

He didn't say why, though. And there were a lot of other hands up with questions, so I didn't get a chance to ask for a clarification.

BTW - you will be happy to know that Diebold and Gannon/Guckert were brought up in my Republican little county!

[crispini]

51. Wow, I went to a town hall meeting today too!

:yourock: We both rock!

The group I was at didn't bring up Diebold or G/G. But, the voters in this rural, heavily Republican area nearly eviscerated the man (Jeb Hensarling, R) about SS. They were NOT HAPPY about the whole idea of "privatization". (and they used that word over and over again, even when he tried to get them to stop.) So it was very, very encouraging.

Here's my post on it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=180&topic_id=10371&mesg_id=10371

[Coexist]

52. Great blog - sounded like a better meeting than mine

It appeared we were all Dems - or at least we all agreed on Social Security. The entire audience seemed to be as well informed here too.

How delightfully refreshing!

[crispini]

53. Thanks, it was fun!

I waved Pete Peterson around a few times. The book, that is, not the guy. :) I figured I'd read enough to know what he'd think, at least about SS.

That's the wonderful thing about getting out and doing RL activism. For some reason it's so much more satisfying than cyber-activism. And you never know what the heck is going to happen.

Bonus! now I can put my Peace Corps and DU stickers on my car to replace the campaign bumper stickers I removed! :)

[CrispyQ]

45. I am "Running out of Steam" with this book.

I got through Chapter 4 & then went back to the December book -- which I missed -- & am now reading "What's the Matter with Kansas." It is so much easier reading than "Running on Empty."

Crispini, I'm going to have to do what you did & skip to the solutions part cuz so far this is a major downhead book!

I do have a question, though. Is it possible to collect more than you paid into SS? Is the amount you qualify for based on how much you paid into the system? So the fat cats who make half a million a year still only collect on the $90K or so of income that was actually taxed, right? Not the half a mil that they made.

Arghhh! I know nothing about SS, except that those stupid statements we started receiving a few years ago will probably mean nothing by the time I'm 65. And that was BEFORE boosh came along.

[Coexist]

49. It is possible that you will collect more than you put in

There was a special on saving social security a long time ago - maybe 60 Minutes or something. It was discussing means testing - and there was a wealthy widow being interviewed.

She said something like, "my husband paid into it, and I will keep cashing my check, it is my right."

They then showed her that Social Security had paid her back every penny that her husband had paid in over his lifetime a few years before, and did that change her mind.

Of course it didn't! But the point it that you can get more back than you put in.

Here are some fun calculators. The first is conservative, the second democratic, the third is Social Security's.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/

http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html

http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/sscalc/sscalc.php