iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Christine Pelosi

Christine Pelosi

Posted: August 22, 2010 04:50 PM

On the 75th birthday of Social Security, the American people got a choice from the two parties: Democrats resolved to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, while Tea Party Republicans urged an end to these vital programs as we know them.

From speeches to rallies from sea to shining sea Democrats seized this moment to celebrate inter-generational compacts that secure our commitment to each other. I believe that Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid are as all-American as motherhood, baseball, and chocolate cake, so it was with pride that I stood this weekend at our Democratic National Committee meeting with my baby in one hand and policy paperwork in the other to argue for a resolution urging the President's Fiscal Commission on the Deficit to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Benefits. The DNC resolution, led by retired steelworker and veteran Robert "Big Red" Rankin, placed a marker down on the side of dignity and security for America's working families by protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The full text of the DNC resolution is:

Resolution Urging the Fiscal Deficit Commission to Protect the Critical Benefits Provided by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as They Conduct Their Important Work to Reduce the Deficit

WHEREAS, President Obama, by Executive Order in February 2010, created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Commission) and the Executive Order directs the commission to reduce the annual deficits to 3% of the national economy by 2015; and
WHEREAS, we fully support the President on the critical need to reduce the nation's budget deficit; and
WHEREAS, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), most of the projected budget deficit over the next ten years results from President Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans and the effects of the worst recession since the Great depression; and
WHEREAS, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are three of the most successful federal programs in existence; Social Security has helped generations of Americans retire with dignity, has a $2.5 trillion surplus and has never contributed to the federal deficit; Medicare has helped reduce poverty among seniors by two-thirds since its inception in 1965; and Medicaid provides essential care for millions of Americans;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee recommend that the Commission do everything possible to protect the important programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

At the same time that Democrats were protecting Social Security, Tea Party Republicans led by Dick Armey were out to privatize it. Indeed, no sooner had I arrived home from the DNC meeting than I tuned in to the Tea Party maven go on MEET THE PRESS where Armey urged Republicans to have the "courage" http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0810/Armey_GOP_needs_courage.html?showall to co-sign the Paul Ryan Roadmap to privatize Social Security, voucherize Medicare, and block grant Medicaid.

You remember the Ryan Roadmap, right? That's the top House Budget Committee Republican repeating the same privatization path that was proposed by President Bush and soundly rejected by the American people in 2005. http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=8521

You would think after all the complaints about Wall Street recklessness causing Main Street pain that privatizing Social Security would be off the table - but you would be wrong.

So the next time someone asks you about the difference between the parties, just remind them that when Social Security turned 75, Democrats celebrated while Tea Party Republicans grabbed the ax.

Democrats resolved to preserve the Social Security Trust Fund, which is running a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus without adding a single penny to the federal deficit, while Tea Party Republicans urged privatizing a third of it, allowing Wall Street to once again wreak havoc on retirement. Democrats resolved to protect Medicare while Tea Party Republicans urged voucherizng it, leaving seniors to the mercy of the market. Democrats resolved to protect Medicaid while Tea Party Republicans urged block granting it, reducing the commitment to our seniors.

When faced with this choice, I believe the American people will stand with Democrats who resolved to reduce the federal deficit without raiding the Social Security Trust Fund or balancing the budget on the backs of our seniors, and reject Tea Party Republicans who urged putting retirement programs - not billionaires' tax cuts - on the chopping block.

 

Follow Christine Pelosi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sfpelosi

 
 
  • Comments
  • 690
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Ralph Jd
Retired lawyer and trustee of several food and hea
11:07 AM on 08/29/2010
Masaccio, with regard to your comment, I suggest you consider the lessons of history: every govt has eventually defaulted on its obligations, either through inflation, repudiation, or disappearing...

The very first American republic, the Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, issued the Continental Dollar which was inflated to the point that by the end of the War for Independence, a single Silver dollar was worth 1,000 paper dollars... leading to the old saying, "Not Worth a Continental..."

Do you think our politicians learned anything from that? Leaving aside the episodes of "suspending specie redemption" during various wars, the current fiat money system, established with the Federal Reserve cartel at the beginning of last century, has overseen the depredation of the dollar by about 98% ... from $35 paper dollars to the ounce of Gold to over $1,200 paper dollars to the ounce.

It sounds to me that we are guaranteed "sovereign default on [USA] bonds, like some banana republic..." -- if you trust the US govt to pay any meaningful value against the the Social Security promise, you are trusting the whirlwind... and we know what we will reap from that!
10:14 AM on 08/25/2010
Democrats celebrate a failed program that is out of money and where people get paid around $200 a month to "survive" for the last 20 or 30 years of their life. Republicans work toward eliminating a program that does not work and never has, all it has done is taught Americans not to prepare for their own retirement, and as a result, most are not financially ready for it when it comes. Good job Democrats.
photo
rebelriser
artist, published author, activist
07:46 PM on 08/24/2010
Are all of you listening closely to what Repubicans are promising they would do if back in power? I like President Obama's example of the choice: D means Drive forward. R means reverse to where you came from. Take off your blinders, you naive followers of Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, Beck, McCain, Romney, Ron Paul, Boehner, McConnel and all Republicans who are following Boehner's lead of blocking ALL legislation that would bring us out of this financial failure. Are you people so brain dead that you think it is alright for Republicans to end Social Security and Medicare? Ask your older relatives. Bush learned when he was doing his trip across these United States trying to convince us Social security should be privitized, that ALL older persons were against it. So you think it would be alright to put your Social Security in the hands of WallStreet? Did you sleep through eight years of Bush & Cheney and especially through Bush & Cheney's last year & a half or so when their policies destroyed our economy and and jobs for US citizens? WAKEUP FINALLY.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cailleach9
02:28 PM on 08/24/2010
Well, we certainly know who wants Death Panels.
photo
rebelriser
artist, published author, activist
07:50 PM on 08/24/2010
Are you trying to be funny? Or are you so naive as to believe Limbaugh and the FOX fanatics, better described as jokers?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cailleach9
12:55 PM on 08/25/2010
No, I'm commenting on the fact that the right wing wants old people to die as soon as possible. How does that mean I believe Limbaugh and FOX? I have never even seen FOX. I don't have cable and get all my news from the internet sites like the NYTimes and the Progress Report, etc. It's the GOPers who want death panels.
12:31 PM on 08/24/2010
READ.....
11:13 AM on 08/24/2010
Don't they realize the tea is poison?
photo
RobM1981
I try to be amused
08:22 AM on 08/24/2010
The trust fund hasn't added one penny to the deficit?

Paging Miss Obvious, BUT: the Congress has passed a law that explicitly excludes Social Security from what is generally referred to as our "budget."

This year, as you would know if you read the papers or even held your Etch A Sketch up to the window, Social Security went into Deficit. The SSA gives the fund another 30 years before its out of money. The CBO, using the numbers that your mother gave them, can only stretch it to another 40 years.

Math is math. People who understand math beyond "I can get a Vente for only 10 cents more than a Grande?" realize that Social Security - as sold by the Democrats who love it - is insane.

Liberal math at its finest. We're losing 30 cents on every sandwich we sell, but we'll make it up on volume...

It's all moot, however, since Obama Care is going to break the bank long before Social Security becomes an issue. Eat, drink, and be merry.

Speaking of Obama Care, did you hear about the two people in NJ who actually signed up for it.

Two.

Only two.

Nice work...
10:08 AM on 08/24/2010
The problem isn't in the math, it's in whose numbers you're using. You can't complain about "liberal math" unless you can do the math yourself, and more importantly, verify that the numbers you're using as a jump-off point are correct, which none of us rank-and-file citizens have enough information to do... partly due to Phil Gramm and the Reagan admin pushing to take Social Security back off the budget (it was on-budget from the late 60s to mid-80s).

BTW, the people who really love SS, regardless of political affiliation, are seniors... and they are the ones who most often vote.
photo
rebelriser
artist, published author, activist
07:55 PM on 08/24/2010
You might have a chance to be taken seriously, BUT your Limbaugh lies are sticking out all over everything you say, and in fact, you don't even understand the seriousness of their fear mongering. Why don't you goats just stop coming here to regurgitate Limbaugh & FOX jokes?
photo
LONDON3
Music keeps me sane in a crazed society :-)
07:35 AM on 08/24/2010
Well dammit I've worked since I was sixteen and there better be some crumbs left from what I've had to pay into SS....and yes I also have a 401(overrated)k and a savings acct too (barely).....still working and hope (pray) to reach retirement age before ALL politicians destroy the entire world at the rate their going
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neal Feldman
42
03:21 AM on 08/25/2010
Ya know? It's positive optimistic folks like you that give me hope for humanity.

Ah well...
01:12 AM on 08/24/2010
The so-called Trust Fund has nothing but IOUs from the US government. The fund is solvent only as long as the amount being collected in social security taxes exceeds the amount being paid out in social security benefits. We are very rapidly approaching the point where that "positive" flow will begin reversing, and more will be paid out in benefits than is received in taxes. The present situation is impossible to sustain. Judging social security is difficult because almost everyone applies a different yardstick. I look at those groups (there aren't many) which had the choice of being part of social security or being part of some private type plan. Almost universally, those groups opted out of social security. Public school teachers, for example, almost always come under some state government plan that is outside of social security. Congress itself opted for a private plan and only came under social security relatively recently because it was too politically embarassing for them to do otherwise. If those who have a choice exercise their choice by opting out of social security, I am led to the conclusion that social security may not be what its supporters claim. I know that if I had a choice, I would have opted out for the simple reason that the return on my social security investment was so poor. If Social Security is so fantastic, why fear giving people other options?
Capncuster
My "microbio" is too racy for the censor.
04:45 AM on 08/24/2010
1. Show us your data.
2. Social security is not an investment like a mutual fund. It is an insurance program.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlbertT
06:59 PM on 08/24/2010
Like all right wing Social Security bashers, you know nothing about it. No one can "opt out" of Social Security. A dwindling number of state and local government employers have never joined or have joined Social Security relatively recently. Newark, New Jersey, joined in 1990, for example. The decision to join is irreversible. At the same time Newark joined the state public employees' pension plan. That was in addition to Social Security, not instead of it.

In fact, Social Security is in good shape compared to other private and public retirement plans. It is serving its purpose, which is to be a bedrock source of retirement income that is not subject to the market.

And that is why conservatives hate it. It shows what nonsense their most cherished beliefs are. The market is not always right. Government is not always wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:51 AM on 08/24/2010
#1. Social Security contributions should be used ONLY for social security and it's component payments, nothing else,
#2. ALL INCOME should be taxed with NO UPPER LIMIT. (wages, capitol gains, rents, leases)
#3. A RETIREE over the age of 65 years of age should NOT have to pay into social security UNLESS STILL WORKING.
#4. Any person RECEIVING over $200,000 per year in retirement benefits ARE REQUIRED TO TEACH IN COMMUNITY COLLAGES "HOW THEY BECAME SUCCESSFUL" FOR EXPENSES ONLY.
If these simple rules were implemented there would be NO TROUBLE KEEPING SOCIAL SECURITY AND IT'S COMPONENTS SOLVENT IN PERPETUITY.
photo
TheNitewatch
Middle of the road
12:40 AM on 08/24/2010
I am CERTAINLY not a Tea Bagger OR a Republican. I prefer to think of myself as a moderate Independent, suspicious of both the left and right. That said, I am also from Generation X. I am going to get stuck with the bill of social security (and many other things the way things are going). They have known that this program has problems for a long time now, yet, nobody has been willing to do anything about it.

Enough! If somebody wants to raise the retirement age, cap the coverage, whatever, just do something! I know that I will never see a dime of my 'cut of the pie'. I'm resigned to that fact and have made other plans for retirement. I'm just tired of the same old BS coming from both sides with no real solutions from either.
photo
rebelriser
artist, published author, activist
08:01 PM on 08/24/2010
It would help if you would continue trying to open the eyes of ignorant Republican followers by telling them of their wrong direction every chance you get.
photo
Sahuaro
Molded by Gilligan, Steed, Darrin, 99, Spock, &Ayn
12:11 AM on 08/24/2010
Social Security is supposed to be insurance in case we're unlucky and lose everything. Instead, we get yearly statements helping us to calculate our expected retirement income. That's not right. Ensuring that the elderly have access to food and shelter, and thus keep them from rioting in the streets is Social Security. It should never have become supplementary retirement income for all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neal Feldman
42
04:41 AM on 08/25/2010
It's as if many millions of seniors and the disabled suddenly flipped you off then took a nap.

Ah well...
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
blingbling65943
10:54 PM on 08/23/2010
For the love of baby Jesus, how can so many Americans be so $#%^ Gullible?

The Republicans doubled your SS payroll tax, they spent it all, and then turn to you and say "sorry, we're broke"

The stole your $%# Money, and Conservatives all over America are marching in the streets to let happen.

unphuckenbelievable
photo
othel
I believe I don't believe
11:18 PM on 08/23/2010
No just how ignorant............
The Tea Baggers, for the most part, are comprised of folks already taking advantage of Uncle Sam's generousity ie. social security and such. Their problem is most are so old and dumb (absorbed by FAUX NEWS) that they don't realize what they're doing. Theiy're being goaded into helping the very rich keep from paying more taxes while shooting themselves in the foot. It's amazing.
10:29 PM on 08/23/2010
If our legislators looked at this today and reviewed the era in which these regulations were implemented, they could see how the system became obsolete because of modern technology. Requirements for paying in to Social Security is as obsolete as the 1949 ford. Social Security needs modernized to maintain and justify the 40 plus years that all workers plus the low wage blue collar workers have faithfully sold their body for over those years.
The real problem with Social Security is---While some employers pay into it faithfully----Other employers look for and find loop holes to avoid paying their share into the Social Security fund. This is where the short fall comes from. It is as simple as that.
Some employers pay into the fund. Some employers find a way to get out of paying their share.
The answer is---figure the fraction there of, for every man hours spent on all items and services rendered and this very small insignificant droplet of a fraction of a cent will solve many to all problems related to everyone’s retirement. After 75 years, even a house needs modernized.
10:28 PM on 08/23/2010
You hear all the Boogie Man talk about your Social Security. The only Boogie Man that is trying to kill your Social Security is the people that pay along with you, part of your Social Security Premiums.
To get out of paying his share of your Social Security, someone is hiring and using scare tactics telling you that when you retire it will not be there for you because too many people are drawing it and not enough people are paying into it. He is right about not enough people are paying into it because he and many more like him make EVERY EFFORT TO GET OUT OF PAYING HIS AGREE UPON SHARE SINCE 1935 WHEN IT CAME INTO EXISTENSE.
To avoid paying benefits on their employees, employers use part time help instead of full time help, they invented independent contractors to do the same work as they did when they were their employees. They outsource their work. This way they are paying peace work instead of hourly work. They bought and paid outlandish prices for automation development equipment. All of this to maximize their profits and avoid paying employees benefits.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:07 AM on 08/24/2010
Whether a person is part time, or full time, SS must be taken from their check for whatever wage they earn. And Independent contractors are resposible for paying BOTH parts of Social Security. If you outsource jobs to another country, well, thats a differernt story, but the bottom line is the outsourcing is SS neutral. Nobody is paying in, but nobody is getting a credit in their account which will be used later to calculate their benefit.

Remember, according to the government, SS is solvent for the next 40 years. But SS benefit calculations only take the highest 35 years of income into consideration when calculating the benefit. Right now, SS is solvent PAST the point where people NOT EVEN PAYING IN YET will start to draw benefits.