As Obama's Fiscal Commission prepares for its June 30 hearing, the Roosevelt Institute's New Deal 2.0 blog invited me to participate in its Social Security's Fiscal Fitness series, which examines the soundness of the program, its relationship to the federal deficit, and the vital role it plays in America's economic future.
Washington bipartisan elites have been working to weaken Social Security since the mid-Clinton Administration. Clinton, prodded by his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, was on the verge of cutting a deal with Newt Gingrich to partially privatize America's most successful retirement program.
The intermediary was Clinton's White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles. The same Bowles is now the co-chair of Obama's fiscal commission -- which also has designs on Social Security. Corporate Democrats keep turning up, like bad pennies.
As I reported in my 2007 book, The Squandering of America, liberals can thank Monica Lewinsky for saving Social Security from that earlier bipartisan deal. Why? Because when the frisky Clinton was being impeached, and Congressional liberals were holding their noses and reluctantly saving him from ouster, they were in no mood to have him trash Social Security. New details have been reported in the recent book, The Pact, by Steven Gillon, about Clinton's dealings with Gingrich.
But what is it with Democrats like Bowles, Rubin, and Rubin's protégé Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget and another of the deficit hawks who would weaken Social Security in order to cut the deficit? Don't they get that Social Security, along with Medicare, is one of the Democrats' crown jewels? Don't they appreciate that two-thirds of elderly Americans depend on Social Security for at least half their income?
As Nancy Altman pointed out earlier in this series, the argument that Social Security is adding to the federal deficit is a bum rap. Ever since Congress in 1983 acted to anticipate the retirement of the baby boom generation by raising Social Security taxes and pushing back the retirement age from 65 to 67, Social Security has contributed trillions of dollars to a government surplus. The intent was to pre-fund the additional cost of the boomers. George W. Bush pilfered that surplus for his wars and his tax cuts for the rich, but even so, Social Security is still in great shape for at least 30 more years.
Social security taxes wages. Get wage growth back to historic postwar norms, and Social Security is in surplus forever. Restore the traditional fraction of wages that are taxed, so that affluent people do not get a free ride on part of their income, and the proclaimed crisis disappears. There is no need to further cut benefits, or further raise the retirement age, or raise taxes on working Americans. If only Citigroup's balance sheet were as healthy as Social Security's!
So why the continued political threat to America's best loved and most successful government program?
The main reason is that Wall Street looks at all that money and imagines the fees that could be collected if it were diverted to private accounts. It's no wonder that Democrats like Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs and Citigroup) and Republicans like Peter G. Peterson (Blackstone Group) are the mainstays of the bipartisan crowd proclaiming a crisis of Social Security and promoting a cut in benefits, or privatization -- both of which would produce more reliance on Wall Street products.
These are the guys who brought us the financial collapse, with its devastating effect on pension savings, 401k's, home equity, and other private resources on which retirees depend. Now, with no sense of shame, they are going after the one part of the system that was not undermined by the calamity -- public Social Security.
This is appalling economics, but happily it is dumb politics.
Politicians relying on superficial poll results may think the American people care more about the abstract goal of budget austerity than the very real one of protecting Social Security. They are in for a big surprise.
Remember the voters who, with no appreciation of the contradiction, warned the government not to mess with Medicare? Just wait till the government tries to mess with Social Security.
If the Obama fiscal commission, as reliably reported, comes in with a grand scheme to cut social spending, including Social Security, and raise taxes on working Americans, the commissioners will be rewarded with a resounding Bronx Cheer.
Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.
Richard (RJ) Eskow: Simpson's Social Security Video Rant: Why It's Important
It's frightening to consider the implications of Simpson's reaction - the fierceness, the ideological drive, and the closed-mindedness. Remember, his Commission has been entrusted with determining your financial future.
There is a Social Security trust fund that holds more than $2 trillion in government bonds.UNDER THE LAW, these bonds are to be repaid from general revenue, which comes almost entirely from the personal and corporate income tax. In other words, the bonds held by the Social Security trust fund, which are supposed to pay the Social Security benefits of retired workers, are effectively tax obligations for wealthy people like Mr. Peterson. If the bonds held by the Social Security trust fund are never repaid, Mr. Peterson and/or his heirs could save tens of millions of dollars from their future taxes. It shouldn't be surprising he is trying to convince the public that the trust fund doesn't really exist.
But, this is just one side of Peter Peterson. He was in the news last week for a totally different reason. It turns out, a loophole in the current tax code allows hedge fund and equity fund managers (like Mr. Peterson) to pay taxes on their compensation at a much lower rate than ordinary workers. While middle income workers like school teachers and firefighters typically face a 25 percent income tax rate, Peter Peterson and other fund managers get to pay the much lower 15 percent capital gains tax rate on the tens of millions they earn each year.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/65341/?page=2
But you CANNOT get around the fact that he is charging a fee for his services. This is indefensible, and a slap in the face for any American who does pay taxes. It should be taxed as income, not Captial gains. Outrageous.
It has been suggested by many that a Senate Committee, similar to the Truman Committee that oversaw military defense contractors during World War 11 should be appointed to investigate the charges of waste, fraud and abuse perpetrated by defense contractors. Millions of dollars in military spending is unaccounted for by the Pentagon, but it appears that this issue has been overlooked and swept under the rug. Are our Senators afraid to confront this situation? Where is the Democratic leadership that is similar to that of Truman and Roosevelt who went after war profiteers?
I am interested to see how many of these seniors who are now collecting sizable pensions and social security benefits will react to possible changes in SS benefits.
In the area where I live, many retired seniors benefited from the loan (not bailout) that was given to the auto companies. What I really find appalling is these same individuals who would have lost their pensions and top-of-the line health care, had it not been for government assistance, are now marching to the drum of the tea party crowd. I hear them screaming about taxes, and government involvement in their lives. What will they do when the "Grand Ole Party" demolishes social security? Maybe they won't be able to frequent the casinos and put hundred dollar bills in the slot machines any longer.
This is a non-negotiable item from the standpoint of the US Citizens.
The destruction of the American middle class isn't a problem for the Republicans. It's a plus.
The only bipartisan breakthrough we need from obama, is the breakthrough that obama finally has when he realizes there is no way for him to broker a deal in good faith with republicans. And no matter how much obama concedes to them, he will not get a single nod back from them and will lose a pretty large chunk of his own voters in the process.
We all know your not a progressive barack, frankly, you seem pretty much a centrist across the board at any other time in history but you won't even be a democrat if you try to get a bill with large social security cuts passed - even the mainstream democrats would rather leave office than sign a political suicide pact.