Democrats won the news cycle yesterday when they slammed John Boehner for calling the economic crisis an "ant." But winning a news cycle isn't the same as winning an election. A new poll shows that the President and his party risk political suicide if they join in the mad rush to cut Social Security, and a sleight-of-hand move by the House leadership today suggests they're considering it. Cutting benefits may seem clever in Washington, where policymakers sometimes toy with the economy as if it were an ant farm. But here in the ant tunnels where the rest of us live, it's terrible politics and worse policy.
It was Barack Obama, not John Boehner, who appointed Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to co-chair the "National Fiscal Commission on Responsibility and Reform." Simpson's a longtime Social Security antagonist who's called retired Americans "greedy geezers" because they don't want their Social Security payments used to fund extravagant tax cuts and military spending. (A video of Simpson's misguided and angry rant drew quite a bit of attention recently.) And Erskine Bowles cut a deal with Newt Gingrich that would have partially privatized Social Security in the 1990's if the Monica Lewinsky scandal hadn't derailed their plans. (He has also revealed what Dean Baker describes as a numerological fascination with using arbitrary numbers as targets.)
By creating this Commission and appointing two commissioners whose views are so far outside the political mainstream, President Obama risks endangering his own future and his party's in pursuit of a misguided policy goal. And a breaking report from Firedoglake indicates that the Commission's set of recommendations -- should members agree on one -- will be submitted to an up-or-down vote by a lame duck Congress after the November elections, provided that the Senate passes it first. That clattering sound you just heard was the sound of Democrats picking up hara-kiri knives en masse.
How grave could their self-inflicted wounds become? New polling from the Celinda Lake organization concluded that "six in ten voters would feel unfavorably toward an elected official who says we cannot reduce the deficit without cutting Social Security benefits, (while) 75 percent would feel favorably toward elected officials who say we should not be cutting Social Security benefits (and) if we need revenue we should be making Wall Street pay their fair share." The pollsters added: "Supporting Social Security is one of the strongest positions for elected officials that we have seen. Voters react most favorably to elected officials who make commitments to protecting Social Security by asserting Social Security belongs to the people who contribute."
Despite President Bush's heavy-handed and unsuccessful attempt to raid Social Security, the Lake poll concluded that "voters nationwide do not have great confidence in either party or in President Obama in their handling of Social Security." In fact, Republicans in Congress - that's right, John Boehner's pack of anteaters - poll slightly better than Democrats on this subject.
The Lake report also said this: "Voters adamantly reject the argument that Social Security should be cut because of the federal budget deficit or that Social Security is the cause of the deficit, and they are strongly unfavorable toward elected officials who espouse this line of thinking." Eight out of ten people rejected cutting Social Security to balance the deficit, with seven out of ten strongly opposed.
More findings: "Seven in ten voters oppose reducing benefits for workers earning more than $30,000 yearly in order to reduce the deficit ... as well as a potential proposal to reduce or eliminate benefits for future retirees with household incomes above $60,000... A solid majority of voters rejects raising the normal retirement age from 67 to 69 years old in order to reduce the budget deficit."
Opposition to benefit-cutting reached across party lines. In Washington, the "bipartisan" consensus is that Social Security must be slashed. In the rest of the country, the truly bipartisan view is that it must be protected.
A procession of witnesses testified before Ant Farmers Bowles and Simpson yesterday, and the cumulative impact of their testimony leads to an overwhelming conclusion: Cutting Social Security isn't just extremely unpopular. It's also bad policy. James Galbraith punctured the "overspending caused the deficits" myth. Ashley B. Carson of the Older Women's League noted that older women receive $11,800 per year on average in benefits, less than the overall average, which is less than $1,000 per month to pay for all of their expenses. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka warned of repeating the mistakes of 1937 and offered a number of stimulus proposals. Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future described the real sources of our budget crisis (which include runaway health care costs we still haven't addressed) and proposed $400 billion per year for five years to get the economy growing again.
On the other side of the argument, Carolyn Lukensmeyer of AmericaSpeaks presented the findings of her organization's "national town meeting" -- a presentation which was slanted to suit a prior budget-cutting agenda despite the progressive conclusions attendees reached. (In the Huffington Post, political scientist and AmericaSpeaks advisor Archon Fung attempted to refute criticisms of AmericaSpeaks by Dean Baker, me, and others. My response to Professor Fung, along with a criticism of the methodology behind AmericaSpeaks, is here.)
It's hard to tell whether the Commission's fixation on Social Security means that it's gone rogue or is merely reflecting the President's intent in creating it. Either way, the political leadership has a problem on its hands: This Commission is in the hands of extremists whose views are wildly out of line with the country's. Should they agree on recommendations which include Social Security cuts (which is not a foregone conclusion but is quite possible) Republicans and ConservaDems in the Senate might very well pass it, locking themselves in a mutual death embrace that would be the envy of doomed lovers everywhere.
If that happens, Speaker Pelosi has now ensured that a lame duck Congress will vote on it too. If Social Security cuts then become law, it will amount to political mass suicide. The two-year delay until the next election will not be enough to save any politician who participated in the process. Voters left to face a lifetime of financial insecurity will have long memories.
There are still several opportunities to prevent such a ghastly mistake. The President and other political leaders should let their allies on the Commission know in no uncertain terms that Social Security cuts must not be part of any recommended solution. Should an agreement be reached that includes them, the President and the Congressional leadership should express their adamant opposition to its passage in either the Senate or House. And should a such a bill be passed, the President should veto it.
Not that the rest of us should sit idly by and wait to be rescued. Citizens need to be sending a clear message to the White House and our elected representatives: Hands off Social Security. Life down here on the Ant Farm is hard enough nowadays, since tax cuts for the wealthy broke the budget and Wall Street recklessness broke the economy. The message: Don't use our Social Security contributions for your tax breaks or Wall Street bailouts. We've kept our end of the bargain, now keep yours.
___________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Richard Trumka: Jobs Should Come First
Could Senate Republicans deliver a harsher slap in the face to working families than heading out for a holiday recess after repeatedly blocking unemployment aid for hard-working people who've had their jobs taken away?
Les Leopold: Wall Street's Answer to Unemployment
Americans are growing more cynical by the day as we watch our elected leaders groveling before the gods of Wall Street. So far much of the anger has been channeled by the right, which tries to persuade working people that the no-government, no-taxes approach is actually good for them. But that's going to change. Sooner or later more and more of us will realize that the brave new world of "structural reforms" favored by Wall Street and the right really means that we'll be working longer, harder and for less -- if we're lucky enough to work at all.
Paul Abrams: Reagan and Two Bushes: The Only Growth of Debt/GDP Ratios in Post-War History
If the country is really looking for a recipe to reverse growth in debt/GDP ratios, bowing at the altar of St. Ronald is not exactly the economic religion we need.
There is, however, a new approach, that delivers all the benefits of privatization, without the negatives. Young people who opt into the program would be guaranteed that their retirement income would never be less than what the normal S.S. pension provides. And when the transfer is completed, legacy costs would be 'paid off'' and Social Security taxes to sustain the pension system need be only a fraction of today's stipend.
This new approach is described in detail on the website www.entitlementdilemma.com. Those interested in improving as well as sustaining Social Security should find it of considerable interest.
Reagan, as aptly indicated, really saved the plutocracy's sputtering counter-revolution, intended to undo the most important progressive accomplishments of the 20th century. He also deflected Carter's brilliant, prescient critique of the oil cartel's death grip on our economy. He was a master of symbolism, from launching his campaign in Philadelphia, MS to taking the solar panels off the roof of the White House.
He showed the power of the soporific slogan. Since then what's worked marvelously well for the ruling class is their propaganda apparatus, which has dumbed down the public so that it routinely votes against itself. Next stop, serfdom.
Get them to pass that dross and then apply a presidential veto to it to the thankful cries of SS beneficiaries everywhere ( the main demographic block that opposed him last time ).
Social Security solvency and social decency restored
A solution to this is to uncap the return -- everyone puts into the system and everyone gets back from it. Is that "fair"? Indeed it is, and how many of you are opposed to fairness? You use "fair" when it is advantageous to do so (which is, of course, not fair).
Alan Simpson is a Conservative, and the fact that he said cutting Social Security was important so that we can cut taxes for the rich and fund needless wars, is telling he reflects the truly messed up priorities of the Conservatrash...what would really save both programs is removing the cap on Social Security taxable wages and placing the tax on "stock options"
Bush, for all his faults, had some courage of conviction.Obama doesn't seem to have neither courage nor conviction. I hope people who get to ask question with Obama in townhalls force him to take a stand on SS/Medicare. Maybe he doesn't intend to destroy those, but it is very difficult to know what he stands for.
Alan Simpson is a Conservative, and the fact that he said cutting Social Security was important so that we can cut taxes for the rich and fund needless wars, is telling he reflects the truly messed up priorities of the Conservatrash...what would really save both programs is removing the cap on Social Security taxable wages and placing the tax on "stock options"
While I will defend S.P. against the thoughtless intolerance and drivel sometimes thrown her way, I really do not want her for President (or Obama, or McCain). Thompson would have made an interesting President.
The simple fact is that neither Palin nor Obama had international experience, and Obama had no executive experience at all. I guess that is the "change" so many people wanted.
What exactly did Greeks do with pitchforks and torches and how has it solved their problems?
That's Palin's forte.
I wonder sometimes which of us has LEP (Limited English Proficiency).
If this is really the same, then you can replace every instance of "social security" with "crooked CEOs are entitled to their pensions and stock manipulation" and people will still understand it.
I don't think so.
Anyway, Social Security is a contributory pension system. If you put in $10,000, you are "entitled" to get back $10,000. You might get more, you might even get less if you die first. But there is no question about your entitlement -- it is YOUR money that you put in.
You seem to have a problem with "CEO". Guy I work with was CEO of a tiny company of 8 people and almost no assets. But, by golly, he registered the company and became its CEO. Do you imagine that he has not earned the same right to get back his Social Security contributions as you have?
This selfish, envy based thinking is mind boggling to me. Actually, it isn't "thinking" at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_Insurance_Benefits
Once the stock certificates are sold, and the company starts making whatever it wants to make, profits of sellling whatevers is divided up among all stockholders. For many people that is their primary source of old age income; it was so for my grandmother who had almost no Social Security but had wisely held onto some dividend paying stocks.
A stock certificate is personal property, and you can sell it just as you can sell any of your personal property and it isn't the government's business and it most certainly is not YOUR business.
The stock market is a brokerage where everyone that wants to sell can find everyone that wants to buy. It is a lot like gambling, but to intrude on it is to intrude on your right to acquire and dispose of your personal property any way you like.
How can I remember a lie? Bush won the popular vote. Not by a lot, but your 17 percent is pure invention.
George W. Bush Republican Texas 62,040,610 50.74%
Obama ran on a platform of "change" without being specific as to what exactly was going to change. He was voted by young people mostly, who see Social Security as a huge and unnecessary burden. Their attitudes will change eventually as they get closer to retirement of course, but for now, you can have an iPod or pay for your grandmother's old age, which is it going to be?
Beware wolves in sheep's clothing. The left throws out "Conservative" to distract you from who is actually dangerous to your way of life.
So far the Democrats have provided 32 million new customers to the health insurance industry, ... expanded the War in Afghanistan, ... allowed Wall Street to bonus themselves as if there had never been a crash in 2008, ... sell their junk securities to our Treasury, ... And postpone, perhaps indefinitely, their speculative practices that brought us catastrophe.
This would most certainly be the last straw, ... and 2012 will be a political bloodbath for any politician who touches Social Security.
They have been publicly warned!
There are many ways to fix the Social Security system and they are not that painful. It would involve raising the limit on FICA taxes. It would require freezing the present benefits for five years. It would require a bit of sacrifice on the part of everyone, from the top to the bottom.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/clinton-foundation-donor_n_152046.html
I'm not sure what you just said in your post but whatever it was probably sticks to both parties.
If the comparison of the federal budget to a family's budget has any rational basis then so does the strategy of paying for the essentials first (home, food, healthcare) and eliminating or reducing the video war games and other distractions.
Heck, eliminate the entire DOD and you still have 10's of $trillions in unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare.
Either have to raise taxes (a lot), reduce benefits, or raise the eligibility age or most likely, a combination of all three.
What to do? First, terminate the payroll tax NOW (a huge break for low income workers and employers). Pay for the entitlements short term with funny money. Once the economy gets rolling (if the Republicans don't force a double dip), fund the entitlements with income taxes--amortizing the unfunded liabilities out 50 years (until the US population achieves negative growth). Balancing the budget includes repaying the borrowed SS surpluses. Republicans want to renege on that debt and cut themselves another tax break. Their disgusting greedfest must end. Our two great experiments in demcratic socialism, Medicare and Social Security, have lifted the elderly out of abject poverty. Let's assure their survival for our grand-children instead of putting the cost on their tab, acting like grown-ups for a change.
At this time we should not buy into the budget balancing fraud. That will kill the economy and give the Republicans ammo for the next two elections. Anyhow, the payroll tax is dreadfully regressive. It must go for its own reasons. I defy the Republicans to block that tax cut. Supporting the entitlements with income taxes will expose them to the budget cycle, but let's get serious. The social security funds were already robbed based on budgeting shortfalls. the difference is a gimmick.
How many Americans know the difference between the national debt and budget deficit? How many know that our largest expenditure is actually for defense (sic.), funding our neo-imperialism at a level that exceeds the rest of the world combined. The Repubicans have thrown away the material wealth and human richness of this country so that the federal budget will pass through their benefactors' fingers (and stick to them).
It's called kleptocracy: Happy July 4th America. Aka Ship of Fools.
And of course, you do. I'll admit, you have thought it out pretty well and I find no obvious fault with it. I might suggest an unwisdom in terminating social security contributions outright which will then have to be restarted (with some pain) in the future.
Or we could do it European style and acknowledge there is no surplus and formalize a change to "Pay-as-you-go" style by taxing the young to pay for the elderly.
The government cannot be in debt to itself. There is no debt to "renege". What it is, is an unfunded obligation -- but there isn't even an obligation. The government can change Social Security at any time. There is no contract. You have not deposited your contributions in a bank where an obligation DOES exist.
I would like to widen your horizon, open your eyes a bit with regard to your relentless attacks on Republicans which you call "greedfest". Need I remind you that most of the wealthy Congresspersons are Democrats? That everyone's beloved Democrat, Bill Clinton, has received many millions of dollars from the wealthy? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/clinton-foundation-donor_n_152046.html.
A few points:
1. Social security was pay as you go until the early 80's when the 1200% increase in payroll taxes created an inviting revenue surplus that was borrowed (in return for internally issued bonds) to offset the true cost of the Reagan tax cuts. Those borrowings constitute nearly one half of the federal debt.
2. Of course the government can owe itself--and pay itself with fiat money. That's how we inflated our way out of the denouement to the Vietnam War. I don't endorse this approach, but that money, which might have sat in an account somewhere paid for an income tax cut on the top brackets. It's long past time for the folks at the top to pay for their privileges. It's called the PROGRESSIVE income tax for good reasons.
3. Regarding rich Democrats in Congress, so what? These days it seems one has to be a billionaire to run for office (e.g., Meg Whitman). How about public financing of elections? Cut out the billionaire advantage and the corporate power grab. And, yes, I'm old enough to have witnessed the decline of the Republicans into two-faced, greedy, heartless lackeys of the plutocracy. And after they ran up most of the current federal debt they don't even disguise their disingenuos posturing about fiscal restraint. They've wrecked the economy with Voodoo economics and turned away from sound (affordable) foreign policy to become the neo-con chicken hawk party.
Not smart. This will take place at taxpayer expense and will take your seat at the old folks' home.
Since you seem unable to control your self interest, we the American people will help you with a list of things you can cut - just for starters:
1. Effective immediately - no more pork barrel spending and earmarks in any Bill whatsoever from now and until the deficit is reversed.
2. Freeze "discretionary" spending for all of Washington - this little item actually got a bump up in the budget. What do you need more Kobe beef & lobster on your private plane rides at taxpayers expense - this means YOU Pelosi!
3. Make a 10% cut to each and every Washington budget - this might include one less chef at the WH, one less maid, one less "Secretary" for Michelle (we hear she has 20 secretaries and before her every other First Lady had one, except for Hillary who had two).
4. Go Vegan at all taxpayer paid meals - beans are cheap and healthy. Buy your own Veal.
5. Cut all Foreign aid - except for emergency disaster aid - until we can afford to make America and Americans whole again - we don't want to hear Israel got $50 Billion in miscelaneous aid - or anyone else.
Start with that and then we - the American Taxpayer can provide you millions more ways to save. You see - because of Washington - we have had to get really thifty at making ends meet down here on Main Street USA
Two questions -- where do you get this figure, and how significant is 50 billion dollars on a trillion dollar budget? How many auditors are you going to have to hire to do this, and how much of that extra tax will vanish into the pockets of an army of auditors?
Not to say it shouldn't be done; but if this is just another leftist pipedream it will end badly with an even larger government and no additional tax.
Unless of course it is necessary to the welfare of our state that some big military base is not closed.
SS should be the last program to be cut.
Start with foreign aid, raising income caps, raing the tax rates for the wealthy, reduce military spending, etc. There is no lack of solutions already known. What the heck do we need a freaking comittee for ?
What is it that our Congress or the WH doesn't understand ?
DON'T MESS WITH MY SS !
Any discussion on the Federal Level that doesn't START with defense spending should be a non-starter. They hope that they can continue to demonize SS/Med for the deficit when they actually use the fund to finance the stuff they won't raise taxes to cover.
We need transaction taxes on all the high-speed trading going on on Wall Street - screw them. They need to pony up at least 50% capital gains on short term trades. Every time FinReg is mentioned they whine about Fannie/Freddie. It's like some lame-assed big brother complaining that his sibling gets away with murder while wanting to punish big brother.
The electorate needs to be educated to understand what is really going on, not the pablum that is pushed on us day after day by the MSM.