The national mood is sour and it is not because Americans think that Social Security is driving the country into bankruptcy -- as many fiscal hawks in Congress and their parrots in the media would have you believe.
Congressman Paul Ryan, proudly touting his "Roadmap for America's Future," wants to convince the American people that his plan for Social Security, in which he recommends that individuals voluntarily shift up to a third of their Social Security retirement money in the stock market -- is worthy of their consideration. His plan is not only a retread of the failed George W. Bush privatization proposal, it is an incredibly patronizing attempt to convince Americans that it is a good idea to sink more money into the very stock market that almost wiped out what little wealth they had managed to save.
Last week President Obama joined this chorus by saying "all ideas are on the table" as he established a commission tasked with identifying ways to reduce federal budget deficits. With these words, the President signaled that he is willing to let commission members consider cuts to Social Security as a part of this effort. One of the first quotes on the matter from Alan Simpson, President Obama's hand-picked commission co-chair, is revealing. When asked by Bret Baier whether Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were on the table, Simpson said, "You bet. That's what the hell this is all about."
Now a new report released by the National Academy of Social Insurance (and co-authored by this author) underscores the fundamental disconnect between the public pronouncements of folks like Ryan and Simpson and the true beliefs of the American people. Dissecting the results of a national poll, the report finds that in light of the poor economy and recent stock market losses, a vast majority (88%) of Americans--95 percent of African Americans, 89 percent of Hispanics and 87 percent of whites--agree that Social Security benefits are more important than ever to ensure that people have a dependable income when they retire.
The poll finds that Americans do not agree that Social Security spending cuts should be a part of a national deficit reduction strategy. When given the choice between cutting taxes and government spending or strengthening Social Security in response to the economic crisis and large deficit, two in three Americans (66%) - including 73 percent of African Americans, 67 percent of Hispanics, and 66 percent of whites - support strengthening Social Security over cutting its benefits.
And Americans are willing to pay for stronger Social Security benefits. When asked their preference between raising taxes on workers or reducing benefits, nearly three in four Americans (71%) said they prefer raising taxes to reducing benefits. It is a sign of the fundamental decency of the American people that a large majority (87%) don't mind paying Social Security taxes because the program provides security and stability to millions of retired, disabled, and widowed Americans and the children of deceased workers.
So what's driving the dark national mood? Americans are upset because many of their elected representatives are taking them for fools. In addition to ignoring the will of the American people in pursuit of their own narrow political interests, Americans know that politicians have used their hard earned taxpayer dollars, including money borrowed from the Social Security trust funds, to pay for an unnecessary war in Iraq, a war of choice in Afghanistan, an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit, and lavish bailouts for pampered bankers.
Like those on Wall Street who mismanaged their books, the politicians now want average Americans to finance their bad decisions by taking a permanent pay cut in the form of reductions to their Social Security benefits. And they are expecting Americans to swallow this bitter pill at a time when more families are facing job insecurity, food insecurity, housing insecurity, and economic insecurity than any other time in our history outside of the Great Depression.
Their approach is especially galling because Americans understand that "everything" is not on the table. Who among our "fiscally responsible" budget hawks is talking about reducing the deficit by levying a financial transaction tax against the Wall Street players who took our economy to the brink of destruction? Who among them is talking about cuts to the bloated defense budget or finally closing tax loopholes and other tax advantages for wealthy corporations and individuals?
Increasingly Americans are realizing that many powerful people in Washington, DC do not understand or even care about their pain. They see those in power who are willing to cow tow to the super-entitled elite but tuck their tails between their legs when it comes to standing up for average Americans. Where are the courageous leaders who can address the nation's budget challenge without laying the bulk of the pain on hardworking Americans whose tax contributions have already been so misused? Where are those politicians who are willing to stand for economic justice?
Americans don't deserve to be sucker punched in their time of need by the very officials they have elected to serve them. We deserve better.
Dr. Maya Rockeymoore is President and CEO of Global Policy Solutions, a social change strategy firm based in Washington, D.C. She is a former staffer of the Social Security subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee and she serves on the board of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Follow Dr. Maya Rockeymoore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mayarockeymoore
But this legislation is forced charity. Widows and orphans, prior to this Act, depended on the charity of other, who voluntarily donated their money and time. Prior to this Act, people saved for their retirement.
There should be a faze out for this program. It is unsustainable at its current level, and it is unConstitutional. But if it were just ended, the results would be disasterous. Establish a 20 year faze out, exempting those over 50 from being dropped, 35 - 50 would see decreasing taxes going to the program, and those under 35 would not be in the program at all.
The government should return charitable functions to the charities. They each have separate roles in our lives, roles in which they excell. They should stay in those roles.
Along the lines of 'This is your land'.
Should be easy to drive out those banksters. They are much fewer in number than the American Indians, after all.
Wall street bonuses are not just politically incorrect. They demonstrate irrefutably that government can no longer govern. To paraphrase Bill Moyers, what am I bid for the U.S. Congress?
Elected officials do not represent the people. They represent first themselves, second their party, and third their corporate sponsors. The "people" don't even make the list.
Every day you see the same ol stuff on the news. Mid term elections are going to be devastating for Democrats. Maybe, but with any luck at all it will be more devastating for incumbents, regardless of party affiliation.
It was tax cuts for the wealthy, and two unfunded wars for cheap oil, that put the U.S. in financial jeopardy. Every dollar spent on social programs in the U.S. turns over 6 times. Providing 6 times the benefit to all. Every dollar spent in foreign wars is gone.....period.
The United States provides universal health care for Iraqi citizens, but not it's own. Angry? we have reason to be.
My (limited) understanding of the budget is that SS is fixable, but that Medicare and Medicaid are cleary the biggest threat to our long term fiscal stability. While I do not agree with the Road Map as I believe that the ultimate goal is to privatize these programs, as a nation we need to have a serious conversation about Medicare and Medicaid.
One only has to look at our inablity to hold rational discussions about health care and the polarization fostered by one particular wing of our demographic makeup and wonder if it is possible (before the ultimate crisis hits).
I agree - citizens want these entitlement programs but we do need to rethink them.
Other programs should be looked at as well, but it also seems difficult (for example all the political spin from the right wing when certain defense programs from the cold war error were scrapped this past year)
Many conservatives want to eliminate the Dept. of Education and leave it up to the states - but is that really in our best (national) interests? especially given the competetion of the educated global workforce?
While I agree that everything should be on te table - how do we get it on the table (in time for consideration)?
"According to the Social Security Administration, the projected long run costs of the Social Security program are not sustainable under the current program framework. They predict that starting in 2016, without changes to the system, the cost of benefits will exceed tax revenues, and in 2037, the program will become insolvent, i.e. unable to pay scheduled benefits in full." (http://socialsecurity.procon.org/)