John McCain's Looming Seniors Problem
| Wed Jul. 16, 2008 10:30 AM PDT
Social Security was not a battle John McCain wanted to fight. The Arizona Senator has avoided putting out a concrete plan on Social Security (his website, for example, doesn't have a section on the issue), and he has been less than exact in his public comments on the subject throughout the campaign.
Unfortunately for him, his flub last week in which he described the basic funding mechanism of Social Security as a "disgrace" — "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today, and that's a disgrace, it's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed" — has given labor unions and seniors' groups, in conjunction with the Democratic Party, the opportunity to highlight McCain's past support for President Bush's highly unpopular plan to privatize Social Security.
On a conference call with reporters today, a coalition of groups similar to the one that fought Bush's privatization initiative in 2005 announced that they would mobilize their supporters and members in the hopes of informing voters nationwide of the fact that, as AFSCME International President Gerald McEntee put it, John McCain wants to "gamble with Social Security." In addition to an online campaign, they plan to have volunteers protest McCain events in the near future. Many will be holding yellow signs provided by the DNC that say "Hands Off My Social Security" on one side and "My Social Security Is Not a Disgrace" on the other. According to a spokesman for the coalition, they will be "heavily incorporating the anti-privatization message on the road at each of the nearly 150 stops on the Bush Legacy Tour." The DNC has made a video highlighting McCain's record on Social Security to accompany the campaign.
McCain opened himself up to these attacks by refusing to take a firm position on the issue. In fact, Social Security appears to be one of an increasing number of issues where McCain has multiple positions at the same time.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
In June, McCain said, "I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." He makes similar comments frequently. Also this year he said, "I will not privatize Social Security. It is a government program and it's necessary. But it's broken! And we gotta tell the American people that we gotta fix it. But my friends I will not privatize Social Security and it's not true when I'm accused to that."
But in March, McCain told the Wall Street Journal:
Q: In 2000, you campaigned for president on a plan to use a part of payroll taxes to create Social Security private accounts. Now your Web site talks about accounts as "supplements" to Social Security. Why the change?
A: Actually, I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts and I think they are an important opportunity for young workers. I campaigned in support of President Bush's proposal and I campaigned with him, and I did town hall meetings with him.
In October 2007, in a presidential primary debate, he said, "We need personal savings accounts." In 2004 and 2005, he repeatedly praised privatization and campaigned with the President for the President's privatization plan.
Today, the closest McCain will come to articulating a position is this: "I would like for young workers — younger workers, only — to have an opportunity to take a few of their tax dollars, few of theirs, and maybe put it into an account with their name on it."
Is that close enough to privatization to freak out seniors? Quite possibly. Especially if they realize that all the money youngsters put into personal savings accounts would ordinarily be going to them. And the coalition of labor and seniors' groups that spoke today on the conference call are going to do everything they can to recreate the magic of 2005, when they convinced not just seniors but a wide swath of Americans that privatization — or anything like it — was too much of a risk to Americans' retirement security to be undertaken. As AFSCME President McEntee said today, "We've got some experience on this."
Comments
.
Copyright 2008 The Lufkin Daily News. All rights reserved.
Cox East Texas
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
"Trust us" has long been the mantra of the Bush administration.
"Just trust us."
Americans (and Congress) trusted that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, making him a threat to the United States and the world.
"Just trust us."
The Supreme Court decided that Americans didn't need to know what transpired behind closed doors as Vice President Dick Cheney met with industry leaders eight years ago to set out an energy policy.
With gas prices soaring, critics lay blame at the feet of Democrats who regained control of Congress 18 months ago. The Bush team has had eight years to shape policy.
"Just trust us."
After rancorous debate between Congress and the White House, the Patriot Act was extended last year. Only later did we learn about FBI officials abusing the ability to act without warrants while investigating American citizens.
"Just trust us."
The U.S. Senate voted Wednesday to approve a White House-endorsed bill to overhaul the rules for secret eavesdropping without warrants. The bill includes a provision that gives legal cover to phone companies that complied with past wiretaps that were not approved by the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Time after time we hear: "Just trust us."
Time after time we see signals that the trust has not been earned.
Don't worry about government efforts to get databases that could show our Web surfing habits. Don't worry about a court order that YouTube turn over records of its viewers' visits. Don't worry that some of the most serious breaches of private data have been the results of careless acts by government employees.
"Just trust us."
Has anybody been following the news out of the U.S. State Department? There's an uproar over employees illicitly snooping on the passport travel records of famous Americans.
"Just trust us."
This week we learned that, in addition to his secret sessions with industry leaders to discuss American energy policy, Cheney has also had a hand in shaping (we really should say skewing) the testimony of EPA and Centers for Disease Control officials prior to their appearances before Congress. From what we can tell, he was just making sure the scientific testimony conformed to the administration's policies and politics.
One of the more interesting defenses of Cheney's efforts to minimize EPA's concerns about global warming issues was that there is precedence for such interventions, including efforts by Clinton officials to deflect a NASA scientist's testimony questioning the impact of global warming.
Do Republican officials really expect the American people to fall for the oldest ploy of all ? the one where a child points to a sibling or classmate and cries, "He (or she) did it first!" defense? Do they really want to hold the Clinton adminstration up as a model for how they want to act?
"Just trust us."
Judging by recent polls, the public's trust has worn thin. This week's headlines are good evidence of why that is so.
Copyright 2008 The Lufkin Daily News. All rights reserved.
David Stockman, the head of Reagan''s Office of Management and Budget -eventually spilled the beans that the huge budget deficits caused by the president's tax cuts had been a deliberate effort to create a budget crisis, which would lead to a slashing of entitlement spending, especially on programs for the poor
With the Bush-Cheney presidency, it appears that mendacity has become policy. Their lying relates to matters large and small. Lies are told to hide, to mislead, and to gain political advantage.
.
..The Case For Impeachment
By Dave Lindorff & Barbara Olshansky
.
Copyright 2008 The Lufkin Daily News. All rights reserved.
Cox East Texas
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
"Trust us" has long been the mantra of the Bush administration.
"Just trust us."
Americans (and Congress) trusted that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, making him a threat to the United States and the world.
"Just trust us."
The Supreme Court decided that Americans didn't need to know what transpired behind closed doors as Vice President Dick Cheney met with industry leaders eight years ago to set out an energy policy.
With gas prices soaring, critics lay blame at the feet of Democrats who regained control of Congress 18 months ago. The Bush team has had eight years to shape policy.
"Just trust us."
After rancorous debate between Congress and the White House, the Patriot Act was extended last year. Only later did we learn about FBI officials abusing the ability to act without warrants while investigating American citizens.
"Just trust us."
The U.S. Senate voted Wednesday to approve a White House-endorsed bill to overhaul the rules for secret eavesdropping without warrants. The bill includes a provision that gives legal cover to phone companies that complied with past wiretaps that were not approved by the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Time after time we hear: "Just trust us."
Time after time we see signals that the trust has not been earned.
Don't worry about government efforts to get databases that could show our Web surfing habits. Don't worry about a court order that YouTube turn over records of its viewers' visits. Don't worry that some of the most serious breaches of private data have been the results of careless acts by government employees.
"Just trust us."
Has anybody been following the news out of the U.S. State Department? There's an uproar over employees illicitly snooping on the passport travel records of famous Americans.
"Just trust us."
This week we learned that, in addition to his secret sessions with industry leaders to discuss American energy policy, Cheney has also had a hand in shaping (we really should say skewing) the testimony of EPA and Centers for Disease Control officials prior to their appearances before Congress. From what we can tell, he was just making sure the scientific testimony conformed to the administration's policies and politics.
One of the more interesting defenses of Cheney's efforts to minimize EPA's concerns about global warming issues was that there is precedence for such interventions, including efforts by Clinton officials to deflect a NASA scientist's testimony questioning the impact of global warming.
Do Republican officials really expect the American people to fall for the oldest ploy of all ? the one where a child points to a sibling or classmate and cries, "He (or she) did it first!" defense? Do they really want to hold the Clinton adminstration up as a model for how they want to act?
"Just trust us."
Judging by recent polls, the public's trust has worn thin. This week's headlines are good evidence of why that is so.
Copyright 2008 The Lufkin Daily News. All rights reserved.
David Stockman, the head of Reagan''s Office of Management and Budget -eventually spilled the beans that the huge budget deficits caused by the president's tax cuts had been a deliberate effort to create a budget crisis, which would lead to a slashing of entitlement spending, especially on programs for the poor
With the Bush-Cheney presidency, it appears that mendacity has become policy. Their lying relates to matters large and small. Lies are told to hide, to mislead, and to gain political advantage.
.
..The Case For Impeachment
By Dave Lindorff & Barbara Olshansky
McCain is right. Social Security IS a disgrace.
Social Security is a compulsory Ponzi scheme that enriches the elderly at the expense of the young. Everyone takes out far more than they ever put in.
It "works" when there are more under the pyramid than those above - when the population is growing and more and more young people are avaialable. However, growth is not forever, and like any classic Ponzi scheme, at one point there will be only a few left holding the bag and they will have nothing.
Don't confuse us with the facts, Paul.
Our minds are made up, and there they must stay.
Social(ist) (in)Security IS the Holy Grail and neither it's pending insolvency nor it's Ponzi-like structure may be questioned.
After all, it is a gift from those Most High who's abode is within the Sacred Beltway.
You both got it wrong. The money that is put away for me (is mine and is not a gift, this is not welfare) should be there for me when and if i am ever able to retire. What is truely a disgrace is that rhis money that is put way for "me" is being spent on things that are not me (war, bridges, weapons systems, $2000 hammers, Haliburton, etc.). I recall many poking fun at Al Gore's "Lock box", doesn't sound so funny now does it, much like the ridicule Gore recieved for drumming enrgy conservation and alternatives research. What a bunch a f...ing hypocrites. If they would just keep their hands of SS there would be no problem (aside from baby boomers getting old, but that's no reasin to trash the system).
Dan: The money that is put away for me...
Is not put away for you.
You're correct.
If you get any money out of the system, it will be from the contributions of those still laboring in the workforce.
Won't that be a disgrace?
Lawrence: The feds need to stop raiding the so called "trust" fund."
Agreed.
But exactly what mechanism will cause Congress to refrain from dipping into any pile containing billions of dollars that is under their control?
A law passed by Congress?
We've seen repeatedly that Congress can UN pass any law it chooses, if necessary. More likely, they'd just bury enough 'weasel-words' in it to allow them to ignore it, rather than let the public know they were preparing to do away with it.
Sort of like they did with their pay raises. They have to pass a resolution to NOT get automatic pay raises, and such resolutions NEVER make it to the floor where Congressmen would risk being exposed for giving themselves a raise while the economy is for sh!t and Our purchasing power is shrinking faster than a balloon with a hole in it.
Social security is a 'social' contract between generations. I have worked form age 15 paying into the 'fund' so my grandfather, father would be assured of a basic quality of life when they retired.
Yes, that money should be put into a lock box and used only to pay benefits. Go back and study Gramm and Rudman and actions congress took after that. They began to move social security funds into the general fund to make the debt look better.
Does this program need some work? Yes. But there are more than a number of ways to keep it balanced. Remember interest and rent income are not taxed for social security nor Medicare. Nor is the upper income wages taxed.
Paul, you must not know much about Social Security if you think elderly people are being 'enriched' by it.
I'll tell you what's a disgrace. That people who have government jobs can retire at age 50 and draw a pension paid for by *my* tax dollars, after receiving far better benefits than I've ever gotten.
I'll tell you what else would be a disgrace. Going back to old folks living in abject poverty after a live of work merely because they are no longer able to perform as required, and because they were never paid enough to be able to save anything.
If Social Security, public education, universally affordable healthcare is Socialism, then I'm all for Socialism. It's far better (and certainly more moral) than the feudal capitalist system where the few have there many multi-million dollar mansions at the expense of the many laboring serfs.
Why are proponents of private accounts never asked what happens to the matching employer contribution? Is it because, if people are stupid enough to fall for the privatization mumbo-jumbo ("The Ownership Society"), they are also stupid enough to forget that their employer pays half of Social Security taxes? I can forsee a time when our economy gets so bad that even those who dismiss Social Security as a "ponzi scheme" will be clamoring for their little piece of that scheme. Maybe Social Security has become "Holy Grail" because it's the last thing our government still does that actually returns a little of our tax money to us, instead of to the chosen few.
Funding arguments to the side for my purposes, is anyone up for privatizing Soc Sec the way they did the Post Office?
Look what a great improvement that was!
complaints with the 'privatized' agency will likely be fended off as 'not a government problem' and issues will be referred to the civil courts with lawsuits.
Wow, what a great idea! For lawyers!
The disgrace is that John McCain draws Social Security. Mrs. McCain had an income in 2007 of $6 million. Senator McCain gets a salary from the Senate. He also gets veterans benefits (which no one begrudges him.) However, drawing social security is not mandatory, at age 65, it is optional. Senator McCain opted to draw over $20K last year, in Social Security benefits, from an already over-burdened system.
That millionaires are allowed to game the system, is the disgrace.
Submitted by Al (not verified) on Fri Jul. 18, 2008 9:07 AM PDT.
All wages should be taxed for Social Security.
The wage cap should be eliminated and contributions above the cap should be a smaller percentage. That will ensure the viability of the system.
After all, millionaires (like McCain) can receive full SS benefits.
He doesn't seem to understand that all pensions & benefits for retirees are paid for by those who currently working & producing goods & services which are the only things keeping the non-workers alive That includes pensions of all types including military, SS, union,IRAs, govt & corporate.
I confess that I was an admirer of John McCain when he was the crusading maverick and not the simpering sycophant he has become. I have certainly grown disenchanted with his choice of philosophic pillars in his single-minded attempt to win the nomination of the Republican Party (forget the general election - foregone conclusion IMHO). However, I find a renewed inclination to reestablish my support for the old war horse if only on this point. The state of the SS system is, without a doubt, a disgrace of the first order.
The viability of the SS system has not been a secret nor have dire warnings not been common knowledge for the last 30 years or more. And still, much like our tendency to avoid facing issues like global warming, energy independence, profligate government/personal indebedtness and acknowledgement of changes in the power relationships of a new world ordering (until they are on the brink of a national crisis), often these issues are avoided like they might tire of shrouding our futures, lose interest and just go away.
To attempt to ignore the looming specter of the ratio of workers to recipients is to ignore the oncoming conflict. This will be measured in generational disenchantment (to be diplomatic) as the full extent of the cost of the support of this baby boomer load in the near future manifests itself. Although I have reservations about the class of solutions loosly referred to as the privatization of SS, it isn't totally without merit. It represents more of an attempt to address the issue than the head-in-the-sand stance of many legislative leaders tasked with the recognition and resolution of the problem. Unfortunately they find it best to merely recognize the danger of the "third rail" and move on to more substantial issues like gay marriage, providing earmarks for "friends" or generating more IOUs on the contents of the 'lockbox' of SS revenues, disfiguring the gaunt visage of a ever expanding deficit.
The current state of the economy and the cyclical power of the stock market go along way to show some of the weaknesses of the privatization solution. The difficulties of providing a viable social system for the population lump representing the oncoming baby boomers inclined not to work until they drop is going to require difficult decisions. Plainly, knee-jerk political posturing from either side will not be useful in making effective and meaningful social calculations. A well thought out and deeply serious consideration by all interested parties would be such a refreshing change that I am sure I would begin to doubt I was still in the good 'ol USA were something like that to transpire.
There is no alternative really and this must happen unless our decision is a collective inaction tending to hasten a degraded position on the world stage. All the issues I have mentioned and more, of course, are bound together in the need for an integrated plan of attack. Therefore we could provide for a generation who, in part, provided for the previous generation's unprecedented standard of post-retirement living, avoidance of world environmental meltdown, a grip on the spending and savings disorder and the plan to keep much of our footing in the world by virtue of better decisions on how the economic and societal goals ought to be defined and incentives designed.
That is the kind of Change that I would vote for if I became convinced that there is someone who embodied such atypical drive and vision. Otherwise, we stand to be observers of the decline of American leadership and the rise of other social orders. These may prove to be in the mold of a different sort of collective sense of direction and priorities. Maybe recognizably good...maybe not.
I took early Social Security due to medical problems and had to give up 25% of what I was due in order to collect. That is a disgrace. I was told that being disabled didn't mean I was entitled to Social Security disability. That's a lie and a disgrace. I would have qualified for disability if I could get the tests needed, but I don't have medical insurance. That's a disgrace. When Medicare finally kicks in, I will be living on $815 a month which, in the winter, will only pay for heat and electricity with nothing left for food or phone. That's a disgrace. Food stamps? I get $10 a month. That's a disgrace. So don't lecture me about a damn thing.
Social Security is a social insurance system, providing for the baseline safety net for all persons unable to work for reasons of disability, age (qualifying) or for supplimental purposes as defined by the SSA. There may need to be some caveats applied. I do nto believe that an undocumented resident alien (legal or otherwise) should receive cash benefits from this social insurance fund. I do believe that all income, earned or otherwise should bear the burden of this tax. I believe that if you are self employed, that you should get a rate break and that if you make millions, it should be on all income with a non-linear sliding scale representative of the same percentage impact it would have on any one of us...pretax, pre-exemption! It is becoming quite clear that if we continue to fail to secure the future of generations having born the burden of our current success, then we will fail to value the future of those coming into and paying into the system now. Infrastructure is moot if there is no one with the fiscal security to use it. The top 6 to 11% of earners, including those who don't earn it, just pillaging as they go, will not be enough to sustain the economy. Look now at the mortgage crisis, and the scam perpetuated on the foreign (and domestic) investors to gain the benefit of thier cash flush economies and then transfer it into the hand of corrupt giants like Freddie and Fanny, not to mention the private forms like Countrywide and its spawn of greed, IndyMac. Anyone who thinks social security is a joke, or a disgrace...you are welcome to secure your own future. I do believ their should be an oppt out clause that allows you to opt out from your withholdings and contributions and payments to your mother, father, grenadparents, or any blood relative. While we at it. lets take your's and all family, and future generations, access to medicare, medicaid, or any government entitlement program or benefit for your contribution to social justice and stability!
politicians including senators and congressmen and women don't use the same system you and I use, so that is why somebody like mccain couldn't give a s h i t about social security...same deal with healthcare...maybe that should change immediately.....
Social Security, like any other insurance or pension system, relies heavily on revenue from new and young accounts to help pay for old accounts. Nothing ponzi about this.
A scheme that stops collecting money from young accounts guarantees that the whole system will be bankrupted quickly.
Quite frankly, if Social Security had switched over to allowing money to be diverted to the stock market -- when Dubya first advocated that idea (about the time Enron stock started plunging) -- by now the nest eggs of many thousands of young employed Americans would have been utterly wiped out. It was the Treasury bonds purchased by Social Security -- what Dubya called "worthless IOUs" -- that remained solid while the stock market went sour.
Bernard offers up this wisdom: Social Security, like any other insurance or pension system, relies heavily on revenue from new and young accounts to help pay for old accounts. Nothing ponzi about this.
Oh, only EVERYTHING is 'Ponzi' about that.
From the Wikipedia definition of Ponzi Scheme:
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves promising or paying high returns ("profits") to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business.
A Ponzi scheme usually offers abnormally high short-term returns in order to entice new investors. The high returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises (and pays) require an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.
Try setting up a private pension plan based strictly on the S.S. model and see how fast you find your a$$ sharing a cell with Mike Tyson.
The disgrace is Mr. McCain.
Ask Yourself How Many Social Security Check He Has Turned Down?? Every Month - Direct Deposit!
The B.S. Is That We Can't Afford It And By Their Rules They Are Right - THey Would Have To Pay Back All The Money They "Borrowed" From The Social Security Trust Fund - Much Easier To Declare Bankruptcy.
.It isn't sink or swim - they lined up all the swimmers and decided to let the public sink. It Is A 100% Sell-Out of the American People.
.
..When a non-profit pays it's executive 187 Million Dollars Severance Package (NYSE) THAT'S FRAUD - EVEN IF IT'S LEGAL BY GOVERNMENT LAWYERS STANDARDS - F R A U D
.
Companies are now too big to fail - BUT Bush Approves Further Mergers.
.
..650 billion dollars for a needless war - THEY had Better Fund Social Security
.
..
.
Copyright 2008 The Lufkin Daily News. All rights reserved.
Cox East Texas
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
"Trust us" has long been the mantra of the Bush administration.
"Just trust us."
Americans (and Congress) trusted that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, making him a threat to the United States and the world.
"Just trust us."
The Supreme Court decided that Americans didn't need to know what transpired behind closed doors as Vice President Dick Cheney met with industry leaders eight years ago to set out an energy policy.
With gas prices soaring, critics lay blame at the feet of Democrats who regained control of Congress 18 months ago. The Bush team has had eight years to shape policy.
"Just trust us."
After rancorous debate between Congress and the White House, the Patriot Act was extended last year. Only later did we learn about FBI officials abusing the ability to act without warrants while investigating American citizens.
"Just trust us."
The U.S. Senate voted Wednesday to approve a White House-endorsed bill to overhaul the rules for secret eavesdropping without warrants. The bill includes a provision that gives legal cover to phone companies that complied with past wiretaps that were not approved by the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Time after time we hear: "Just trust us."
Time after time we see signals that the trust has not been earned.
Don't worry about government efforts to get databases that could show our Web surfing habits. Don't worry about a court order that YouTube turn over records of its viewers' visits. Don't worry that some of the most serious breaches of private data have been the results of careless acts by government employees.
"Just trust us."
Has anybody been following the news out of the U.S. State Department? There's an uproar over employees illicitly snooping on the passport travel records of famous Americans.
"Just trust us."
This week we learned that, in addition to his secret sessions with industry leaders to discuss American energy policy, Cheney has also had a hand in shaping (we really should say skewing) the testimony of EPA and Centers for Disease Control officials prior to their appearances before Congress. From what we can tell, he was just making sure the scientific testimony conformed to the administration's policies and politics.
One of the more interesting defenses of Cheney's efforts to minimize EPA's concerns about global warming issues was that there is precedence for such interventions, including efforts by Clinton officials to deflect a NASA scientist's testimony questioning the impact of global warming.
Do Republican officials really expect the American people to fall for the oldest ploy of all the one where a child points to a sibling or classmate and cries, "He (or she) did it first!" defense? Do they really want to hold the Clinton adminstration up as a model for how they want to act?
"Just trust us."
Judging by recent polls, the public's trust has worn thin. This week's headlines are good evidence of why that is so.
Copyright 2008 The Lufkin Daily News. All rights reserved.
David Stockman, the head of Reagan''s Office of Management and Budget -eventually spilled the beans that the huge budget deficits caused by the president's tax cuts had been a deliberate effort to create a budget crisis, which would lead to a slashing of entitlement spending, especially on programs for the poor
With the Bush-Cheney presidency, it appears that mendacity has become policy. Their lying relates to matters large and small. Lies are told to hide, to mislead, and to gain political advantage.
.
..The Case For Impeachment
By Dave Lindorff & Barbara Olshansky
. I have always been told to take it with a grain of salt.
.
..With this administration and Mr. McCain it's called pound SALT and like it.
.
..A dose ot truth serum all around would be refreshing - not possible but refreshing
Earl F. Landgrebe on 07/16/08 at 11:41 AM Respond
if they re-pay the monies they borrowed instead of declaring bankruptcy - is what I've said - RE-PAY THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND - - - NOT 650 BILLION DOLLARS FOR A NEEDLESS WAR
