The Republican Party's attempt to privatize Social Security under George W. Bush was wildly unpopular. At least one Republican Congressional candidate is openly calling for Social Security cuts, and Rep. Paul Ryan's widely-publicized "Roadmap for the Future" includes both privatization and benefit cuts. With all these GOP threats to a popular program, why do polls show that the Democratic Party's advantage on this issue has collapsed?
Here's one reason: Voters want to know that their leaders won't cut Social Security benefits, and not enough Democrats have promised they won't. Some, including the president, are avoiding the issue or changing the subject. Democrats clearly think that Social Security is a winning issue for them, but polls suggest that voters aren't likely to be swayed by declarations that oppose privatization but are vague on benefits.
A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll tells the story of the Democrats' declining fortunes in Social Security. People who were polled this month only gave Democrats a four-point advantage over Republicans (30%-26%) on the issue of "dealing with Social Security." That's down from the 28-point advantage (48%-20%) they enjoyed in October 2006. Meanwhile, recent polls showed that 68% of people responding oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare to pay for the deficit, including 60% of Republicans.
Voters looking for a clear statement on benefits from the Democratic leadership aren't getting them yet. Instead, Democratic leaders insist on fighting a battle that's not being waged right now: privatization. While Republicans probably would revive this issue if they had the White House and majorities in both Houses, that's not on the table right now. On the battle that is being fought, benefit cuts, statements from the president and other party leaders have been conspicuously silent. As this Greenberg poll shows, politicians that support Social Security cuts will face strong voter backlash.
President Obama's weekly address, on the 75th anniversary of Social Security's creation, was entitled "Honoring Social Security, Not Privatizing It." The address was directed at the issue that's not on the table right now -- privatization -- and offered no assurances for voters on the subject of benefit cuts. And observers won't be reassured by the president's comment that he was "encouraged by the reports of serious bipartisan work being done on this and other issues in the fiscal commission that I set up several months ago." The Democratic and Republican co-chairs of that commission both have a history of advocating benefit cuts, as does economist and commission member Alice Rivlin.
The President chose to cap his remark with the same FDR quote Nancy Pelosi used for the the occasion of Social Security's birthday: That it should provide "some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against poverty-stricken old age." That quote doesn't reassure voters that Democrats will protect their benefits. It suggests, in fact, that "some measure" against poverty is all they intend to provide. That's disturbing, since Social Security keeps 20 million Americans out of poverty. It's also a selective use of FDR's words. In the same speech, Roosevelt went on to say: "This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete ... It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness."
Speaker Pelosi understands the need to take a more unequivocal stand against cutting Social Security benefits than that quote provides. That's why she, along with twelve other Congressional candidates, have taken the pledge to protect Social Security from both privatization and benefit cuts. The Campaign for America's Future will be tracking all candidates to see who's signed the pledge and is offering an online petition to defend Social Security for citizens to sign.
"Today," said President Roosevelt at the birth of Social Security, "a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled." That hope must now be defended from those who would cut or dismantle it. If Democrats want the job, and the political majority that will enable them to do it, they're going to have to be clear about their intentions.
_______________________________________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. 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
How the money is spent is immaterial. The issuer of the bond accepts the obligation to pay back the investment with interest.
Why is that centuries old principle so hard for conservatives to understand?
Social Security is an absolute Ponzi scheme of epic porportions. The fact that we allow it to continue is sickening. Give us the ability to opt out! I will take that 6% of my paycheck and save it myself.
There are people who fought Social Security from day one. It is mostly the rich and those who believe what the rich say about Social Security.
The gov would never let you save for retirement on your own. They will have safe treasury bonds and index funds chosen for you. The only difference is those great big fat profits that Wall Street will demand.
Trust the people that love you. I hope my children will get Social Securty when they retire at 67.
Except that's exactly what Paul Ryan's deficit-reduction plan involves. There are dozens of GOP cosponsors in the House. What part of that isn't "on the table"?
Something's going to have to be cut to stave off the debt. Obama would rather it be healthcare and social security as opposed to military
Simple as that.
Republicans say "Look, there's a serious problem." It often isn't a problem, but no one tells any one it isn't (Obama is a Muslim, for example) and on those rare occasions that they identify a real problem (long term deficits) no one is willing to mention a progressive solution, let alone defend one.
It is this pathetic dynamic that makes us lose when we should win on any number of issues from health care (we lost) to climate change (we're losing) to social security.
Because Obama is a teacher, not a leader.
Nobody can ever privatize it.
Because they realized that they would first actually have to hand over the money.
So they have come up with something far more odious.
That's why the Dems are in on "the fix".
Social Security benefits are one of the few places left where there is a little blood left to suck out of the rest of us, and they think they have a God Given right to it. .
Sit down and play a game of Monopoly. The ONLY rule change is that every time someone passes go, you take 15% of what they have and put it aside. Don't put it in the bank, and don't give it back.
What you'll find is that eventually, there is not enough money to buy everything that is on the board. The board, and everything that is on it, represents the economy. The cash in your hand, and in the bank, represents the money supply. They have to be balanced, its merely a matter of choice as to how you do it. A money supply in excess of the capital requirements leads to inflation. The opposite leads to a deflationary spiral.
The choice, made in 1935 by the way, was that the trust fund would be invested. The safest investment is US government securities. Simply put, you cannot take the Trillions of dollars that the trust fund needed to accumulate out of the money supply. It HAD to be re-inserted in some fashion.
I think the question everyone needs to ask is how do we pay for social security?
How will it be funded for the next 75 years?
It is a ponzi scheme plain and simple. In the near future there will be what...2 workers to support one SS recipient?
This affects all Americans.
All he really needs to do is the decent and fair thing, which means not cutting benefits and not raising the retirement age.
"Take it off the table, Obama and the rest of you Democrats!"