More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mary Kay Henry

Mary Kay Henry

Posted: August 13, 2010 11:22 AM

It's time to get real about the future.

Working people are facing the most profound economic crisis of our lifetimes. All over this country, women and men who have worked hard their whole lives are facing long-term unemployment, foreclosures and the dramatic scaling back of their dreams for their kids. Families who have struggled and saved to own a home and build for the future now wrestle with how to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. And after decades of hard work, too many American workers are retiring into poverty.

With 26 million Americans unemployed or underemployed right now, retirement seems like a strange topic to discuss.

It must've seemed equally strange during the depths of the Great Depression. Our leaders, however, understood that financial security is the underpinning of recovery. Instead of shrinking from the challenge, our nation seized the opportunity to rebuild our economy and create a reliable retirement benefit that all workers could count on.

On this, the 75th anniversary of Social Security, in the midst of another great economic crisis, it's time to recommit ourselves to the fundamental values we share as Americans: that if you work hard you should be able to earn a paycheck that supports a family. And that after a lifetime of hard work, you deserve to retire with dignity.

Forget what you've been told. Social Security is not in crisis today. It remains the bedrock of our retirement security system. In fact, it's the only universal part of our retirement system that isn't in crisis.

And thank goodness, because for most Americans, the rest of the retirement system is in the red zone.

Half of working Americans today have no retirement benefits through their work. None.

And why? Because over the last 30 years, we've been subject to a deliberate effort by corporate CEOs and anti-worker politicians to slash pensions, reduce 401(k) contributions and place the entire burden of saving for retirement on the backs of workers.

The race to the bottom on wages and benefits has made it impossible to save for our retirements. Families are using credit cards to buy groceries and fearing layoff notices. And when you add that to the global financial meltdown, which wiped out 401(k)s and working families' hard earned savings, you have a catastrophe that will take years to correct.

The only retirement source we know we can count on in this country is Social Security. Savings evaporated and home values plummeted when the economy collapsed, yet Social Security kept sending out checks, the same way it has for three quarters of a century. It's the most reliable, sustainable retirement program we have.

There is no question it's an essential program. What we need to ask is if Social Security benefits are adequate.

For many hard-working Americans, Social Security alone is not nearly enough to retire on. The average Social Security benefit is just $14,000 a year -- less than a minimum wage income for a full-time worker.

Nearly half of all janitors, home care workers, child care providers and other service sector workers risk of retiring into poverty if they're relying solely on Social Security. Nearly two-thirds of women retirees receive below-poverty level benefits. Half of African Americans and Hispanics retire into poverty.

This should be a wake-up call for politicians in Washington. It's simply unacceptable that our earned Social Security benefits leave retirees in poverty for the rest of their lives. That's no way to reward a lifetime of hard work.

Instead, we hear the same old arguments: we can't afford Social Security, we need to cut benefits, we need to raise the retirement age.

Wrong. The politicians and corporate interests pushing these arguments are the same people who destroyed our pensions. The same people who want to hand the fate of our retirements over to Wall Street.

The truth is that Social Security doesn't add a dime to the deficit. And it's a program Americans want to protect. According to a new poll released this week, nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose any cuts to Social Security.

The retirement future for our families looks pretty grim. But it's not etched in stone.

We can celebrate this anniversary of Social Security by declaring that no American should live their retirement in poverty. We can focus on creating adequate Social Security benefits while funding Social Security for generations to come. We can continue rebuild our economy at the same time we work to strengthen Social Security to meet the challenges of a 21st century workforce.

We can give our children and grandchildren a reason to celebrate in another 75 years.

Visit SEIU.org to learn more.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 442
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bg66astoria
Research Helps
11:31 PM on 08/16/2010
We must also rein in the unlimited public pensions offered at the Federal level.

One example of questionable accountability is Alan Greenspan - who receives approx. $160K/year even after taking the notable partisan change of heart once GWB took office & OKing the massive unnecessary tax cuts that destroyed a budget deficit & helped create our present financial mess by deregulating & lack of regulation by the previous administration. We must start controlling and examining why only worker pensions are subject to elimination by fiat.
Those who betray their oaths of office, pols and/or bureaucrats must be accountable for their actions. I agree with Lewis Walsh
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bg66astoria
Research Helps
11:20 PM on 08/16/2010
1) Eliminate the cap on income subject to the FICA - Social Security Tax, also include taxes on cash bonuses at the appropriae rate for the taxpayer.

2) Change the tax code to normalize workers not currently covered by minimum wage laws.

3) properly define & distinguish between those who are truly independent contractors [working by project contract, making independent work decisions, etc], supervisory personnel who are not making mgt decisions, etc.

4) Independent contractors must have access/entry to Unemployment Insurance, and other worker protections, OSHA, EPA, etc.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:37 PM on 08/16/2010
In addition to the litany of economic assaults against the working classes, we must include Individual Retirement Accounts and 401 (k) plans. Congress has been eager to privatize your public pensions and eliminate your company pensions, but they were not so eager to eliminate the pensions provided to them by the taxpayers:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977229538
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:01 PM on 08/15/2010
Far better to turn our retirements over to Dodd and Frank.

They did such a good job with Fannie and Freddie.

Oh wait, they received special treatment.

If they had an "R" after their name they would be reviled.

Instead they are praised.
photo
Skunkman
old & decrepit
06:18 PM on 08/15/2010
Social Security belongs to the workers and their families who have worked hard, paid taxes in, and earned its benefits. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit, and its benefits should not be cut to reduce the deficit. The federal governmenSocial Security belongs to the workers and their families who have worked hard, paid taxes in, and earned its benefits. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit, and its benefits should not be cut to reduce the deficit. The federal government found the money to bail out Wall Street; it must find the money to pay what it owes to Social Security. Today’s and tomorrow’s beneficiaries – children, people with disabilities, widows, widowers, and retired workers – deserve no least found the money to bail out Wall Street; it must find the money to pay what it owes to Social Security. Today’s and tomorrow’s beneficiaries – children, people with disabilities, widows, widowers, and retired workers – deserve no less. If Republicans want a scapegoat find something else.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RodbfromNC
05:42 PM on 08/15/2010
Why does the media NEVER focus on E#eliminating the Income Cap on SS. How about START talking about raising the cap, (1/2 the FICA Tax) for those making 300K per year or more.. Income over 1 million per year should be taxed 1.5 X the FICA tax on normal wages.
Why raise retirement and cluck the poor and NEVER SPEAK of making those who have it made or "have made it", to Raise the Income Cap pay and pay a little more.
With capital gains taxes use 2.5% of earnings over 100K for FICA. On Estate tax for estates over $7 Million in value (special exemptions and structure for "real" family farms) 5% FICA tax and additional 5% for each 25 Million (limit of 20%).

Finally lower the retirement age to 50 or 55, and increase initial payment by 10% and add 10% more in monthly payments every 5 years you wait to retire. Make initial minimum payment $2000 per month, not $735. Rent is an average of $800.

There.I did that in 15 minutes. Congress can take a few hours to do it.

Now let's have the media talk about it. Thank you for addressing it on this blog.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:24 PM on 08/16/2010
The answer to your opening question is that the media decision-makers, and the political class, are the ones who would have their taxes raised as a result. I've even heard the latter talking about raising the retirement age for SS to 70. Can anyone really imagine a 70 year old going down into a coal mine or operating heavy construction equipment? But that seems to be fine to those high earners so long as they do not have to make a fair contribution to a society that has given them the most.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RodbfromNC
04:23 PM on 08/16/2010
I agree...It's kinda rhetorical. BTW, remember Rostinkowski when he made some off hand remark about raising the SS age or cutting benefits. He was surrounded by seniors who wanted to play checker with his test-icles. T believe that the public has enough anger to not allow that discussion to take place. The problem is that the anger appears to be from the loony fringe of the right that don't really know what they want..until it happens.
04:47 PM on 08/15/2010
I agree with Paul Krugman that this is a minor fiscal issue and the population is being swamped in disinfo yet again. What is the math if we actually were able to lower the retirement age to 55 or 60 or 62? I see this as a win-win for younger, unemployed US workers and older, worn out, traumatized US citizens. Kind of a long overdue bi-partisan bonus for the workers of our country. If we want to restore confidence to our population this may be a good way to start. Happy Weekend *
09:44 PM on 08/21/2010
paul krugman is not a economist, he plays on the tv. he flunked out vs the guys over at mises.org and cafehayek.com
11:39 AM on 08/15/2010
And what is wrong with taking care of oneself? I do not need a nanny like Ms. Henry to look out for my future. In fact people like her make it harder to prepare for ones future by making our country a nanny state.
01:43 PM on 08/15/2010
You hit the nail squarely on the head with that one... It seems to me that the founding fathers had it right the government that governs best governs least.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RodbfromNC
03:09 PM on 08/15/2010
Then you need to donate all of your Social Security to your drug dealer or a good charity. Since you made millions and don't need Social Security it, maybe give to your Church or something that you feel good about...like the Tea Party.

But do NOT tell me, after all I have paid into it, I can't clucking get mine.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:59 PM on 08/16/2010
Wow! How very naive of you. The odds are that you will suffer some misfortune in your life at some time that will be beyond your self-sufficiency to deal with. Most of us do. That is why humans have formed communities and have done so for millions of years. The point is that you will never be without your basic needs and brotherly/sisterly comfort when you are a part of a community. In addition, communities produce better results in all endeavors than individuals can on their own. Sometimes it is necessary for the brighter, the stronger and perhaps the luckier to make a larger contribution to the community. With the exception of Darwin's doctrine of "Survival of the fittest," I do not know of any philosophy or religion that that teaches what you NOW believe.
04:49 PM on 08/16/2010
LewisWalsh, you are difinitly a product of the nanny state. I never said a word about Social Security, one way or the other. One does have to be responsible for oneslelf. As an investment Social Security is bad on a dollar for dollar return.

Ms Henry says that Social Security is not in crisis, how can it not be when the Federal Governments owes it 2.5 Trillion dollars?
photo
SparkyGump
It's time for the party of NO to Go
10:39 AM on 08/15/2010
If it wasn't for Social Security, we would have lost our home. I am afflicted with a genetic disease and am now disabled. If it wasn't for that SSDI check, we would not have been able to afford our home. The republicants would have kicked me to the curb while preaching social Darwinism. Hopefully, one day may the republicants grow a soul.
03:12 PM on 08/15/2010
Did you not have short term and long term disability SparkyGump? If you have been able to KEEP the 6.1% you paid into SS and your company's matching 6.1% and invest it into a conservative portfolio guaranteeing your principal and then back it with short and long term disablity you probably not only would have the same if not more income today compared to what SS gives you but you would have a nice nest egg of YOUR money in the bank as we speek.

People don't need SS to survive. What they need is education to know that the you as an individual can do MUCH BETTER financially then what the government could ever provide for you.
photo
SparkyGump
It's time for the party of NO to Go
07:33 PM on 08/15/2010
Bottom line is accountability. How many thieving Wall Street Bankers has gone to jail? I trust the government more than I trust Wall Street. If you want pure capitalism, move to Haiti. I hear real estate there is a steal.
07:26 AM on 08/15/2010
For all of you left wing liberals out there let me make a proposal. Go to each and every american out there, especially people in their 20's, and make them an offer. For the 6.1% they put into SS and the matching 6.1% their employer contributes we will give you 2 options: 1) continue to "invest" it into the traditional SS with their "promised" benefit when you retire or 2) you may redirect that money any way you wish into your own retirement accounts BUT you must sign on the dotted line that you will not be eligible for ANY SS benefits during your lifetime.

What option do you think most will choose and why?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RodbfromNC
03:11 PM on 08/15/2010
I think, Mr. Millionaire, that my Second Amendment provides a solution to you taking away my SS Benefits and giving it to your clucking investment banker.
09:21 PM on 08/15/2010
I never suggest taking away "your" benefits. I just want MINE and and proposing to let each individual decide whether they want to invest it in the SS PONZI SCHEME or they decide on their own where they want to save it. There are some GREAT conservative corporate bonds that pay 4-5% in dividents that completely devastates ANYTHING the federal government has done for any of us tax payers. Wake up man!!!!!!!!
09:26 PM on 08/14/2010
Why did so many poor and blue collar Americans vote Republican in the 1990's and in the early 2000's? They voted against their economic self interest and now they are paying a heavy price. We all know that there simply were not enough millionaires to elect Republicans without the help of what used to be called Reagan Democrats. Will we shrink military funding or will we shrink SS and Medicare? It would take huge tax increases to fully fund all programs as they are currently constituted. Many of the high paying jobs lost since NAFTA went into effect (around 1994) won't be coming back even when the economy recovers.
09:30 AM on 08/15/2010
"take a huge tax increases..."

this is so stupid and just goes to show me to never trust the democrat party. all they want to do is take more of what i earn. And i am just a nobody lower middle class guy with a wife and young daughter, whom i very much love and want the best for and all i see from the democrat party is that they want everybody enslaved to a big federal government. give me a break.

am voting for Rand Paul here in KY. i will never vote for some jerk like very liberal Jack Conway.

some of the reasons why the US is in such sad shape is a direct curse of liberal policies. i said it and i stand on what i said.
12:39 PM on 08/15/2010
"liberal policies". "Enslaved to a big federal government??" You do realize of course that Bush increased the size of federal government, right? He was not a liberal. By "liberal policies" do you mean like Social Security which gives some amount of dignity to our elderly instead of having them die homeless? I hardly consider that slavery. I lived in Europe for 5 years. My European friends enjoyed life without worrying about having to pay for medical expenses or education, and they enjoyed much more vacation time than Americans. Somehow they are able to provide this in their society, while some Americans say we cannot pay for a fraction of the services here in the US. I think we can, but not if our leaders continue to waste money on things like the war machine. We just need to reprioritize things.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RodbfromNC
05:47 AM on 08/16/2010
And I should trust a party that will make sure the rich get richer and the middle class are destroyed.
I should trust a party that do not and have never voted in my interest as I am White, but not Rich or Christian.
I should trust a party that wants to put seniors into poverty and has voted no on everything just to regain power even though they set up a system where the rich get richer, but ship all our jobs in this country, to China chasing an extra buck.
I should trust the GObp to look out for me while they sell their soul to Satan for a dollar.

You need to troll on Beck's blog or RedState.com, not here Bagger.
07:55 PM on 08/14/2010
Social Security has fundamentally and positively changed American old age. There is little doubt that without Social Security our country would be a far different place for the aged--and a poorer place for them.

However, people who deeply support the program, like myself, do regard it as endangered. Americans are enjoying longer retirements. Social Security has never been a "savings vehicle", since the money has been invested in a special U.S. Social Security bond, and the cash used as operating funds by the U.S. Federal government. Unfortunately, it is not a funded system, and the funds were not invested in a modern way--stocks, bonds and cash.

We have to adjust the flow of income and payments. We should also create greater incentives for private portable pensions; annuities--fixed, index and immediate, and other principal secure savings options for personal pensions. Read my blog at http://www.wealthvest.com/blog/category/wade-dokken/. The American Retirement Crisis is real and impacting us all. Buttressing Social Security, while further encouraging private retirement accounts are all part of the long-term solution.
]
09:06 PM on 08/14/2010
As I understand it, the Social Security/Medicare surpluses over the years have helped mask the deficits in general fund budgets since Lyndon Johnson's days. By creating a unified budget, Congress made the Federal deficits caused by the war in Viet Nam look smaller. You are right, Social Security and Medicare surpluses have always been invested in US government bonds. There never was a lock box. But there is a filing cabinet in Martinsburg, WV, where the bond records are kept. Now that the surpluses are fast disappearing because of the lousy economy and retiring boomers, the government will actually have to find new buyers for the interest coupons and bonds that SS will be redeeming. The lock box fantasy is turning into a real cash flow problem for the Federal government. Younger Americans will get a worse deal from SS than the baby boomers who are getting a worse deal than their parents did. Ida Mae Fuller, the first beneficiary, got a very good return on his small contribution (under $25). She collected benefits for 35 years (over $22,000). She also received free Medicare in the last decade of her life, a program to which she had not contributed. Unfortunately, many Americans simply don't earn enough to save significant amounts of money. Younger Americans should consider looking abroad for better economic opportunities.
09:11 PM on 08/14/2010
"his" should read "her" before the words "small contribution".
09:31 AM on 08/15/2010
i agree, "Younger American,s should consider looking abroad for better economic opportunities.
07:42 PM on 08/14/2010
As a first step and vote of confidence we need to lower the retirement age by a year or two.
09:12 PM on 08/14/2010
How about shrinking the military budget instead?
05:29 PM on 08/14/2010
The best way to save SS is to keep it out of the hands of the GOPers who have had some pretty nefarious plans to put it in the hands of their nephews, children, and good friends the Stock Market. Can you imagine the investment fees they could charge and get for investing your money? They have been trying to destroy the program since 1937. Their solution is to gamble your money just like the big banks did for the last 8 yrs. For all you fact checkers is it possible to get any facts about the tax cut for the rich and all the jobs it created during the past 10 years? I'll bet it really was alot and if you hand over your security to the party of big business it will be as effective as what the tax cut for the wealthy wrought.
07:54 PM on 08/14/2010
As opposed to our government, who handles our money so well? The thought of my federal taxes going to Afghanistan and my state taxes going to fill in all the holes Blago dug for us is too sickening to dwell on. One band of theives and incompetents is not much different than the other.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ianmcc
Those who you let anger you conquer you
08:18 PM on 08/14/2010
Despite the GOP's yearly scare tactics about SSI, even republican seniors are hip to what they want to do with SSI benefits as you described, simply another means to steal from the poor and enrich the top 2% even more. Thus even Fox News viewers by and large I would think are smart enough to tell the GOP to keep their hands OFF their SSI.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:34 PM on 08/14/2010
Any comparison with the other wealthiest countries of the world can leave no doubt that well organized and funded actions have been taking place in the US to curtail the advance of the working class. Unions in the US have been so damaged that only about 10% of the workforce - and most of them are public service employees - are now unionized where 60% to 80% is usual in other wealthy countries. Unions have been put at great disadvantage by legislation such as the Taft-Hartley Law and, the Department of Labor has most often been stacked with labor-hating and corruptible appointees.

You should add to your litany of economic crimes against the working class the fact that
over the last thirty years, major employers have found that they could shift the costs of training employees to the employees. This has been successful because of the high levels of actual chronic unemployment in the US. Education and training provided by employers is rare these days. Job seekers must guess what skills will be sought by employers over long time periods and attempt to acquire those skills at their own expense. Sweet deal for elite employers, not so sweet for job seekers. Just another example of how privatization and deregulation have allowed the powerful to prey on the weak. Welcome to the United States of Serfdom.
07:56 PM on 08/14/2010
Unions have been put at great disadvantage by the laws of economics. They drove their own jobs overseas. The only unions jobs that couldn't be offshored were government jobs, and now all our state and municpal governments have pretty much been driven into insolvency.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:31 AM on 08/15/2010
Weird cherry-picked response to a complex detailed comment. "...laws of economics?" or is it corrupt unpatriotic business practices?
photo
don
We're going to need a bigger nutshell.
04:14 PM on 08/15/2010
If unions drove their jobs overseas, who drove the non-union jobs there? Not every outsourced job is a union job. As a matter of fact, unions staved off the outsourcing as much as they could with lobbying for US content laws on automobiles sold here, which resulted in Japanese auto makers building plants here. An effort rewarded by those who got those jobs declining to unionize. Enjoy your 40 hour week and weekends while you can.