Social Security: Doing It All Over Again
Thursday, 28 October 2010
In December 2004, soon after George W. Bush had been re-elected president, I began what became a year-long series of posts about Social Security – 23 in all – covering its beginnings, its success over many decades and refuting the lies Bush and his minions told as they traveled the 50 states through 2005, intent on fulfilling Bush's campaign promise to privatize Social Security.
During those many months, Time Goes By readers responded magnificently to my repeated appeals and exhortations to sign petitions, write or telephone their representatives in Congress, and to post Social Security stories on their own blogs.
In the end, Bush lost and we elderbloggers played a small but important role in the nation's overwhelming rejection of privatization. It seemed to be over and done with, so much so that a couple of years ago, I removed the link in the right sidebar to that long series of posts.
It turns out that I was premature in doing so and now we need to do it all over again.
In the wake of our disastrous (and ongoing) recession, bank bailouts, housing crash and record deficits caused by unending wars and tax cuts for the rich and corporations, hardly a Republican alive in this midterm election campaign has not called for cuts to Social Security and/or its privatization. Some want to eliminate it altogether.
And it is not only Republicans. Some blue dog Democrats have joined the Republicans, and President Obama, although he has said he opposes privatization, seems waffle-y. As James Ridgeway at Unsilent Generation pointed out recently:
“It was Obama who set in motion the Fiscal Commission, supposedly to study the deficit but in fact, as just about everyone in Washington knows, to pare entitlements, cutting Medicare and Social Security.
“Originally, this commission was thought ready to propose lifting the limit at which one could draw Social Security from 62 to 67. Now scuttlebutt is that the entry age should be 70.
“Our supposedly 'socialist' president has placed the country’s premier social program in the hands of Alan Simpson, a Republican crank who views old people as the new welfare queens.”
William Greider, writing at LaborNotes last August, puts an even finer point on President Obama's involvement in trashing Social Security:
“Barack Obama is actively collaborating with this conservative ploy. He created a presidential commission on deficit reduction, stacked with conservative deficit hawks from both parties. They will not reveal their recommendations until after this fall’s election — too late for voters to push back.
“Obama is playing coy himself, but his aides have made clear his intentions. Social Security is the sacrificial lamb. It will be offered up to Republicans to get them to make a deal on taxes. The tax cuts for the wealthy enacted in the Bush era are set to expire, but Republicans and many Democrats are loath to let that happen.”
First they took everyone's savings – 401(k)s, IRAs and other investments – in the great crash of 2008.
Then they took away the jobs – or cut salaries in half.
They followed up by confiscating homes.
And now they want the only thing of value anyone has left: Social Security.
No matter what happens in next Tuesday's election, whacking Social Security will be a high priority with the new Congress come January. We must oppose it.
No proposal (yet) dares speak of any changes to current Social Security benefits or for those older than 55. But our younger brethren deserve protection and who better than we elders, who know how important that program is to getting by in old age.
Privatizers and benefit cutters (the latter includes raising the retirement age) argue that workers can just save more for their retirement. Really? How? They've lost everything (see above list) and (personal opinion only) inflation is soon going to eat away at what little they have left.
So this is number 1 in a new series on Social Security at Time Goes By. I'm asking you to start now to educate yourself and those two articles from Ridgeway and Greider linked above are a good start. I will be posting details with plenty of links in the weeks and months to come to point you to the information you will need.
Meanwhile, some others are mounting a campaign against the war on Social Security. At Campaign for America's Future, there is a chart of Washington politicians, organized by state, who promise – or not - to oppose benefit cuts. Check out your state.
The Campaign for America's Future has also prepared a Promise to Protect Social Security letter [pdf] that is easy to print, sign and send to your representative either my snailmail or it can be scanned and attached to an email.
Raul Grijalva, a three-term Democratic congressman from Arizona's 7th District who is in a tight race to retain his seat, has sent a letter [pdf] to President Obama opposing cuts to Social Security. Follow that link to see the names of other congress members who have signed.
However much the Republican rank-and-file and tea partiers are inclined to vote against their own best interests, most of the country supports Social Security as is. Greider again:
“Whatever Washington claims to believe, the people have their own consensus about Social Security, shared by both young and old, left and right. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed (85 percent in an AARP poll) to reducing Social Security benefits to address the deficit. A strong majority (65 percent) thinks Social Security benefits should now be increased, given everything else that has happened to people.”
Will you join all those other people and me in keeping up the pressure on Washington until we win again?
At The Elder Storytelling Place today: Steve Kemp: Long Lost News: Woolly Clones Shepherd New Era
"They followed up by confiscating homes." Really? And are "they" now occupying those homes? Or are were they in fact sold to other buyers who could afford them?
Protecting SS is a worthy goal but an over the top "rage against the machine" battle cry is not going to help the credibility of the effort.
Posted by: Mark Patterson | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 05:45 AM
Social Security would not be in trouble at all in 20 years or whenever it is supposed to run short if they simply raised the amount on which people paid the payroll tax. Once again it is protecting the wealthy at the cost of the average retiree.
I also wondered when I saw Obama talking about his goals for the next two years with Republican control of Congress. Raising the age of full benefits is very unfair to the working poor, to those who labor with their muscles for their salaries. Their lifespans haven't changed that much and many of them cannot afford (even with medicare which they will also try to cut) the health care that keeps many other elders living past what used to be expected.
The problem with all of this is the lack of attention Americans pay to anything and how easily they are convinced by slick ads. We would not have the pathetic candidates on the Republican side of this if Americans were more caring about politics and saw it as impacting all they do. They think they can get their information from those ads and those ads will be what will try to sell them on changing Social Security and gutting Medicare. They will have a lot of tea party types who really want to just end it helping them.
Keith Olbermann did a good special comment last night on what the tea party candidates want to do when they get in. It's worth the time of anyone who didn't see it to find it on YouTube. He laid out what we can expect from them while the good old boys in the House and Senate try to keep them in line by 'helping' them get staff that will cooperate with their rich benefactors and the corporate goals the GOP owes its allegiance to...
Posted by: Rain | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 06:40 AM
"Will you join all those other people and me in keeping up the pressure on Washington until we win again?"
-----------------------------
Oh you can bet I will. With bells on, tap shoes tied and and emails flying.
On a side note, this morning I found an email newsletter I subscribe to inviting me to vote for a peoples choice award (TV show). The request was charming, polite. The link took me directly to the appropriate page. I was able to tick off my choice (in this case a type in option. LOL, I always seem to like the non-standard offering). In under 5 minutes my voice, my choice was requested, heard and noted.
It makes me wonder exactly why we don't find such emails from those who represent us in general. But especially on issues of great import such as social security*.
*I assign higher import to soc sec because unlike many choices in life there's no 'do-over' for the age we have achieved. It's not as tho any of us can turn back the clock or do things differently to adjust to changes in what soc sec promised all the years the monies were withdrawn, set aside for us, to access at 62/65.
Yes, bells and tap shoes for sure.
Posted by: Faye | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 06:42 AM
Here we go again ... a fight that has to be done.
@ Mark: Stealing does seem to be part of banks' arsenal of fraudulent profit avenues. From the New York Times: "Sonya Robison is facing a foreclosure suit in Colorado after the company handling her mortgage encouraged her to skip a payment, she says, to square up for mistakenly changing the locks on her home, too.
Thomas and Charlotte Sexton, of Kentucky, were successfully foreclosed upon by a mortgage trust that, according to court records, does not exist."
On and on it goes, the funneling of the wealth of the country to the already-wealthy.
Posted by: janinsanfran | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 07:44 AM
I'm almost one year away from being elgible for my late husband's SSI (reduced) as a widow. It is indeed very important to me, because with that additional income I hope to be able to afford medical insurance.
What I cannot understand about the effort to eliminate SSI/Medicare...is what do they think will happen to all those old folks without income and unable to work physically? Do they not realize those people will not simply disappear but be out on the street, or living with younger relatives, stressing them. Do they want hordes of homeless old folks shuffling along the streets?
It just seems to me that many of the republican/tea party plans are not well-thought-out and IF they ever get what they say they want, it will be a nightmare from which no one (not even the republicans) can escape. That covers everything from repealing the health care reform to doing away with SSI/Medicare to tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. We are ALL living in this country together, and no one escapes the consequences of having a majority of poor, sick/old people.
Yes, I will make every effort I can to help preserve SSI; I still recall my grandmother getting her first check, how happy she was -- having worked hard all her life, it was a highlight for her.
Posted by: Cara | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 07:47 AM
You betcha! This is a fight I'm willing to take on with gusto. I have copied the promise and will send it to my representatives(Especially the demented John McCain and John Kyle.) I know Shedagg would join those two weathy hypocrites so he will get one, too. Bless Grijalva who is in a fight for his life. I hope he doesn't lose the election.
Posted by: Darlene | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 09:00 AM
Please read Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine" where she describes clearly and completely how the adherents of global free-market capitalism attempted to re-invent the economic systems of Argentina, Chile, China and other nations (next the U.S.?) through a three step system which she calls "Disaster capitalism) I.e., "the use of public disorientation following massive collective shocks to push through highly unpopular shock therapy" The origins of of disaster capitalism go back to the University of Chicago's economics department under the notorious Milton Friedman .
Posted by: mythster | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 10:01 AM
"The Shock Doctrine" was published in 2007 but is even more relevant today than it was then. The privatization of Social Security fits perfectly into the pattern of disaster capitalism.
Read it!
Posted by: mythster | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 10:29 AM
Today's
"How to of the Day"
"The old age can be a time of self-fulfillment and happiness. But it must be lived properly. Most people have first time in their live the possibility to life themselves. But they misunderstand self-realization as the way of acting out the external needs. Living the external needs is for a short time of interest, but in the long run, it is rather unsatisfactory. It does not really make you happy in the depths of your soul.
At the old age the inner happiness must be cultivated. Extremely necessary is the path of inner happiness. Old age often brings energy loss, disease, meaninglessness, and many external problems. The nerves are getting weaker, and the inner positivity declines. At the old age it is necessary to make every day exercises to maintain the physical health and to strengthen the inner happiness.
Posted by: mythster | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 10:33 AM
You are so right, Mythster, about Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine." It's a real eye-opener. The super-rich capitalists let no crisis go to waste. Some of them now claim Chile's privatized social security was great, when actually it was a disaster and has been changed.
I agree that right-wingers don't really think about the awful consequences if they got what they wanted. There used to be places called "poor farms" where indigent old folks were sent until they died and were buried in unmarked graves. There's one, now a park, not far from here.
Neither my husband nor I was able to work to age 65, much less 70! We didn't do physical labor, but our bodies wore out just the same. Ronni is right when she says wealthy people ought to pay FICA taxes on their entire income, the way the rest of us did.
Posted by: joni | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 01:38 PM
I'm totally on board! However, I think we need to consider how to counter the shouts of the opposition that Social Security will soon be insolvent. The rallying cry of the tea party types and deficit-hawk Republicans will be that SS and Medicare are bankrupting the country and cannot be sustained. I don't believe that, of course, but a lot of people do. If right-wing conservatives win in force next Tuesday, we'd better believe they'll go after SS!
I don't support raising the retirement age across the board, but as lifespans increase, some of us may be able to work longer depending on health, the type of work we do and--perhaps most important--the availability of jobs and employers' willingness to hire older workers. At almost 74 I'm fortunate to still be working part-time for my employer of 35 years. My husband retired at 76 from a healthcare-related career. Perhaps working longer could be encouraged by favorable tax legislation for those who can.
I absolutely believe that the payroll tax should be extended to ALL income earned by wealthier Americans. There's no good rationale for letting those most able to pay off the hook after a certain income level is reached. And just think how much more money would become available for other purposes if we extricate ourselves from Afghanistan!
Posted by: Elizabeth Rogers | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 06:58 PM
My destiny is to join you all in this fight to save SS; Finally something we totally agree upon. Sign me up. Ship me out. I'm ready for glorious battle in the defense of a major part of my retirement plan and that of others, most everybody's in fact.
Posted by: john | Thursday, 28 October 2010 at 10:21 PM