Republicans -- senile on Social Security?

[JDPriestly]

One thing you can say about Republicans, they aren't very original, especially when it comes to attacking Social Security.

In an August 14, 1985 editorial, the Los Angeles Times reassured readers that Social Security, on its 50th anniversary was "functioning well--serving 36.7 million Americans, including 22 million retired workers who are receiving back substantially more than they contributed" and announced that the future was bright, since "the surplus in the funding seems assured for most of the next 50 years, and the enormous popularity of Social Security seems to assure support for whatever proves necessary to maintain its effectiveness in perpetuity."

But, Republicans warned that Social Security was in trouble -- and the solutions they recommended sound very familiar today.

"The hard realities of the economics of the last 50 years demonstrate that there is no secure substitute for, no realistic alternative to, the federal Social Security program. Tempting options, suggesting lucrative returns if individuals were allowed to divert their Social Security contributions to private investments, fall apart on close examination because they are constructed on premises that are at best optimistic, at worst illusory, and that fail the crucial requirement that the system be universal. To argue that the United States cannot afford this system is to argue that no society can contrive an income-protection plan for its senior citizens. Of course it is affordable.

"The present system is basic, not a mere supplement, to the
livelihood of most older Americans. For one-fourth of the beneficiaries Social Security provides 90% or more of their income. For two-thirds it provides more than 50% of their income. About 60% of the aged would be living in poverty today without the program, Robert A. Rosenblatt and Jonathan Peterson, Times staff writers, found in their report Monday on Social Security. Even with Social Security, 14% of older Americans are classified in the poverty sector."

"Despite the popularity and demonstrated effectiveness of the
program, there has been an erosion of support that has resulted in some skepticism about the future of Social Security among younger workers. That erosion needs to be halted. There are proposals to freeze or delay cost-of-living increases in Social Security as a means of reducing the federal budget deficit. That would be unfair--a failure to recognize that the benefits at best provide minimum support. There also have been findings that cost-of-living increases may have been excessive. If there are inequities in the basis for calculating the cost-of-living increases, these should be corrected directly and not attacked with the clumsy instrument of a freeze."

Deja vu -- Republicans are repeating themselves. And, they do not seem to be able to remember that Americans have resoundingly rejected their plan to privatize Social Security every time they have suggested it. Are they purposely trying to bore us? Or are they senile? Could it be that, after 70 years of mental laziness, the whole Republican party has developed Alzheimers?

Quotes from the Los Angeles Times archives, August 14, 1985.

[alexisfree]

1. ...

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

3. Here we go again!

Great cartoon !!

[gnofg]

2. they

have always hated social security and medicare. They like the idea of a poorhouse.