Different ways to say privatization of Social Security

[madfloridian]

There are different ways to say privatization of Social Security and Medicare. They don't always use the word privatization. I feel deep inside that many in the Democratic party intend to turn these programs over to private business. But they will call it other things. Here are some quotes I have found.

The DLC started setting policy on Social Security and other social programs back in 1998 and before. Here is one paragraph from 1998:

"The Skeptical Generations do not reject government; they object to inflexible bureaucracies that move too slowly, limit choices, and resist sensible innovations in areas such as welfare, education and criminal justice. That is why, for example, charter schools - a new form of public school not controlled and run by the central school bureaucracies - are spreading. It is why New Democrats have proposed converting federal training and social programs into vouchers, so that citizens can make choices formerly delegated to so-called experts. And it is why many Democrats are talking about modernizing Social Security to include individual savings accounts."

Building the Next Democratic Majority

They in that one paragraph advocated for charter schools, vouchers, and ISAs. Which is another way of saying private accounts or personal accounts.

And a Medicare plan:

"Senator Breaux's proposal aims squarely at the political center, and it follows the "third way" principle of achieving public goals through market means. While it would harness competitive forces to restrain health care costs, it does not go as far as a voucher system that would leave seniors without an entitlement to basic coverage, as Republicans proposed in 1995. It also challenges the assumption of many Democrats that a tax increase is the only appropriate solution to Medicare's fiscal problems. The Breaux plan would help ensure that the baby boomer generation does not take more out of Medicare than it adds to it. "

From Medicare Breakthrough:
Medicare Breakthrough

That is basically what has been done with the Medicare D plan. They could not even get a bill through our Democratic congress to lower the drug prices through bidding. Profit for pharma first.

And here is the discussion of private plans. Only they use various terminology. And they forget to mention that carving out part for private accounts will hurt those already in the system.

"One of the major reasons the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has supported a two-tiered or partial privatization approach (one that maintains a government-provided retirement "safety net" while moving towards private savings accounts for individual pensions) to Social Security reform is to give the poor a means for accumulating income-producing wealth for retirement. In the past, we have praised the Moynihan-Kerrey proposal to carve out a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to seed private accounts, in part because that may be the only way to get low-income families onto the savings ladder. "

Retirement Savings for Low Income Americans

Isn't that what Social Security is now...a way that the poor can retire after contributing to the system?

They also have called for "Universal Pensions". Here is an article by PPI's Paul Weinstein from 2002.

Universal Pensions

Retirement security in America is at a crossroads. The debate over Social Security solvency remains mired in partisan politics, more and more Americans are forced to work longer into their retirement years in order to maintain their standards of living, and in the wake of Enron many Americans are concerned about the safety of their retirement nest eggs. Meanwhile, the private pension system is simply not expanding enough to meet the needs of future retirees.

While Congress regularly adds new incentives to the growing array of tax savings vehicles, retirement security remains stagnant. The U.S. personal savings rate continues its steady decline and too few Americans are saving enough for retirement. Many low-income individuals do not have any savings, and pension coverage for those employed at small businesses was less than 20 percent. And among those who do have savings plans, a large number of them are depleting their retirement savings by cashing out their 401(k) plans when changing jobs.

To really boost savings, we must overhaul the current system to let workers decide how much they can save up to some uniform limit, give workers control over their investment choices, and fold all the existing tax-favored savings accounts into one "universal pension" that workers would take from job to job.

Social Security does go from job to job with us. Though who can afford to invest other ways as well, in addition to contributing to Social Security.

And again my problem with all this is that Social Security can be tinkered with in minor ways. If some are not going to contribute, it will take money away from those who contributed to Social Security all their lives.

[WCGreen]

1. Charter Schools are failing left and right....

[madfloridian]

2. Yep, and taking money from public schools....just like vouchers are.

:hi:

[WCGreen]

4. They performed way below the norm here in Ohio where they

really were pushed on the public hard...

[illinoisprogressive]

3. Then, do not nominate a DLC candidate.

[KT2000]

5. Figured out nursing homes

would want this.
When a person is old and running through their money in a nursing home, they are entitled to everything held in that person's name. Would the privatized part of social security be taken too?

If it was - the remaining social security would be pretty minimal and greater cost would shift to medicaid, if that will even exist in the future.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. So the DLC invented this in 1988?

I hardly think so. Privatization of Social Security was being promoted shortly after FDR established the programs. There have been several attempts to turn SocSec into a cash cow for the financial world.

--p!

[madfloridian]

7. No, I am not saying that.

Of course they have tried for years to do this. There was discussion here about who is for it and who is not. I was pointing out that there are many terms for it.

Sorry you misunderstood me.

[Greyhound]

8. There is no crisis, there is no need, this is simply the corporatists of both parties

doing their masters bidding.

Wall Street just can't stand the fast that there's all that money they can't get their hands on. They know that their game is unsustainable without an ever-increasing influx of new money coming into the system and they also know that we are approaching the end of this cycle of the scheme.

They've delayed it for 25 years or more with the huge infusion that resulted from the pension looting, unprecedented deficit spending by the government, and subsequent rise of the 410(k) "retirement accounts" and rule changes, but the $7.5 trillion take in 2000 was pretty much the last of the easy money.

They've successfully conditioned people to "prepare for their retirements" over the last couple of decades, but stagnant wages have limited the increases in contributions available, so without some new, significant infusion of cash to fuel the "growth" we are approaching another collapse.

Just watch, they will not give up looking for the "magic phrase" that will convince the sheeple that it is in their interests to turn the jackals loose on the SS fund.

[slipslidingaway]

27. "...but the $7.5 trillion take in 2000 was pretty much the last

of the easy money."

Great reply IMO. There was an article on the site linked below in early 2000 or late 1999? that talked about how the pension plans being run for the large corporations were slowly and continuously reducing their exposure to equities while the self-directed, 401K plans, were increasing their exposure to equities as the market approached the 2000 top. During the subsequent decline there were commercials on TV explaining to people that they should leave their retirement money in the market. That may have been a good strategy for those who did not have large retirement accounts and who were not near retirement age. Unfortunately many people sold what was left as the market approached the lows, of course the big money was quietly buying from the little people.


"They know that their game is unsustainable without an ever-increasing influx of new money coming into the system and they also know that we are approaching the end of this cycle of the scheme."

I fear you are correct.


Could not find the particular article I spoke of above, this is the monthly newletter from February.

We're Swimming In Liquidity, Aren't We?

http://www.contraryinvestor.com/2007archives/mofeb07.htm

snip>>

"Although we’re pretty darn guilty of this ourselves, we can’t turn around these days without hearing the words, “it’s a liquidity driven market”. Trust us, this is not about to go off into yet another discussion of the macro credit cycle. We know global central bankers are “sponsoring” excess liquidity. As we’ve documented recently, we know Wall Street is capable of the same and is fully in gear at this point. We know the derivatives markets underpin excessive risk taking on the part of investors. We know private equity is the new fountain of youth for the institutional investment community. And we know levered hedge funds are not about to change their collective ways any time soon.

But what we don’t know is how households/consumers will react ahead as, very much unlike the financial markets, they are not swimming in liquidity. Not by a long shot...

...In literally point blank terms, the following chart documents just how important stock and real estate asset inflation has been to growth in household net worth by the decade over the last half century-plus."

[madfloridian]

9. From 2003...Will Marshall says Fix it Now.

He seems to be arguing to "get beyond" the argument on privatization....and just do it. I read this portion several times.

Social Security: Fix it Now

Note the "liberal claims" term here. He can't resist it.

The report offers no support for liberal claims that Social Security faces no problems that a little more economic growth won't solve. Under the most optimistic set of economic and demographic assumptions, the gap between payroll tax rates and Social Security outlays would be smaller, but it would not disappear. For example, the projected gap between outlays and revenues in 2035 shrinks from 4.3 percent of payroll under the trustees "intermediate" assumptions to 1.7 percent under the "low cost" assumptions. (Under the trustees' "high cost" assumptions, the gap in 2035 is a staggering 7.3 percent of payroll.)

....While President Bush has promised to give Social Security reform high priority, the commission he formed in 2001 struck Democrats as tilted toward advocates of "privatization." Democrats' failure to turn the 2002 midterm election into a referendum on privatization -- diverting some portion of payroll taxes into personal savings accounts owned and managed by workers -- highlights the limits of a "just say no" approach to Social Security reform.

It's time to move beyond the phony war on privatization and start focusing on what needs to be done to restore confidence in the basic financial integrity of America's biggest and most important social insurance program.

So is that what he is saying?

[madfloridian]

10. Will Marshall's temper tantrum with Democrats about Social Security

In 2002 Will Marshall blasted Democrats who took an oath to preserve Social Security. He also blasted the organization which asked them to take a pledge about it.
That group is Campaign for America's Future. Here is their website.

http://home.ourfuture.org/

Here's their page about Social Security.
http://socialsecurity.ourfuture.org

He was extremely angry about the topic.

Social Security Pledge Failed Democrats

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- Nothing better epitomized the hackneyed and reactive character of the Democrats' 2002 midterm campaign than "The Pledge." Like camp meeting converts swearing off demon rum, nearly every Democratic candidate for Congress dutifully took the Pledge. They vowed to never, ever allow working Americans to divert some portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. In leftish circles, this goes by the name of "privatization" and is regarded as the ultimate political thought crime.

And lest Democrats entertain any impure thoughts about reforming Medicare, the pledge also requires them to swear fealty to a new prescription drug entitlement "that will cover all drugs beneficiaries need" and that won't "push beneficiaries into HMOs and other managed care plans."

The pledge is the brainchild of the Campaign for America's Future, a union-backed organization that is to Social Security and Medicare what the Inquisition was to medieval Christiandom. Its latter-day Torquemadas enforce New Deal-Great Society orthodoxy and ferret out heresy with religious zeal.

Now he is angry with us "neo-populists", a term he just made up. He needs to calm down some. Get to know us liberals, Will. We are not so bad, honest.

[madfloridian]

11. self deleted...wrong thread.

.

[madfloridian]

12. Comprehensive article by Dreyfuss at Campaign for America's Future

I am only posting one paragraph, it is very long. It shows where we are most likely heading. This article is from 1999.

http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/socialsecurity/key_issues/money_trail_and_wall_street/readarticle50.cfm

"Marron of PaineWebber is especially concerned about moderate Democrats, since the GOP is solidly lined up in favor of individual accounts, called PSAs in the jargon of Washington, for "personal savings accounts" or "personal security accounts," or PRAs, for "personal retirement accounts." Not long ago, Al From, the head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, had lunch with Marron and another PaineWebber official. The DLC, whose purpose is to realign the Democratic Party away from its traditional alliance with the AFL-CIO, is strongly leaning toward NCRP-style privatization. The November/December 1998 issue of The New Democrat, the DLC's bimonthly magazine, is filled with a series of pro-privatization stories under the heading "Less Than Secure: Rebuilding Social Security for the 21st Century"; it includes a piece by Senator Breaux outlining the commission's proposals. "

We have had too much denial on this.

[Tellurian]

13. Here is Hillary's statement on Social Security:

No trick words, no slight of hand. Hillary will leave Social Security as it is...and most likely search for funding to secure it's continued solvency.

"The President’s proposal for private accounts would substitute Social Security’s long-standing promise of guaranteed, lifetime, inflation-protected benefits for benefits that would be tied to the fluctuations of the stock market.

I oppose his idea to divert money from the Social Security program to establish private accounts. There are several key reasons why replacing Social Security with a privatized system would be harmful for Americans.

First, privatization leaves retirees vulnerable to stock market fluctuations or poor individual investment decisions.

Second, the current Social Security system is progressive and assists women and families by indexing benefits to those who earn less. Women especially would be disadvantaged by a privatized system because they would have lower annual account deposits and would likely lose the advantage of spousal benefits.

Third, fully one-third of payroll taxes are used to cover disabled workers and survivors.

It is uncertain how the federal government could afford to pay these benefits if a percentage of the payroll tax is diverted into individual accounts.

Finally, the projected cost of changing to a privatized system while continuing to pay current benefits is estimated to be several trillion dollars in just the first decade, an unfunded liability that we can not afford."

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/seniors/

and also this:

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.

Clinton scores 100% by the ARA on senior issues

The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security. The Alliance believes that all older and retired persons have a responsibility to strive to create a society that incorporates these goals and rights and that retirement provides them with opportunities to pursue new and expanded activities with their unions, civic organizations and their communities.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

[madfloridian]

14. Yes, I know all their stances. But I have no trust anymore.

Words don't mean a thing anymore to me. I hear platitudes, I hear spin. I mean I hear it from everyone.

Just as I begin to trust them since the war vote....it starts all over again with the trade deal.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1316

There are going to be Ideas Primaries all over the country, each one sounding like it is the Democratic Party holding them. It isn't.

There is a National Conversation in Nashville in July....for all the candidates to talk about issues.

I made the point this week that the DLC formed the new trade deal, and they knew all about it when members of Congress did not. It is in the post above.

We tend to judge people by those they hang around with.



I want to trust them. I just don't.

[Tellurian]

15. Alls I can say is, you've run with the wrong people for too long..

It sounds like you've been so bombarded with false assumptions, it's hard to know your own mind anymore. Heres what I do and it works. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I meet people without preconceived notions and listen to them talk. I found by and large there are very few good listeners. They are so busy talking about themselves, you can't get a word in edgewise. So, I let them ramble on while I listen. The minute I sniff anything that sounds out of line, I take a step back- not physically, mentally. Then I begin to follow the trail until I'm sure one way or another of 'what and who I'm dealing with'. Thats one of the first rules of life. Maybe you've never thought about it that way, but it is. You follow the Three Rules of Life and you'll be fine.

Hillary has never deviated from her word. I trust her more than any other candidate in the race. She's grown so much since she became a senator because now she has a clear understanding of how the system works. The senate has given her the background and the personal involvement in how the government can help people, especially the people in need. Hillary has the intellect and the wherewithal to make the system work for us once again, just as her husband did 8 yrs ago. I'm in..I'm in it to WIN WITH her.

[madfloridian]

16. I did not say I did not trust her specifically.

I just don't trust anyone. I am fearful they are not going to stand up for seniors when the time comes.

Did they do anything about the cost of drugs for seniors, and about the donut hole? No, not a single thing.

They promised but too many Democrats voted for a silly rule to have our FDA which is totally incompetent judge the drugs that come in from Canada and other countries. Where are the dead Canadians as they say..

I am not singling out anyone, I don't trust any when it comes to seniors. Too many are hurting.

One of our local Democrats, a elderly woman, called the other day. She is definitely not poor, just on retirement income. The doctor changed her blood pressure medicine...she was panicking. She went in to pick it up....it cost $75 more than her other one. She told them she would not buy it.

We convinced her to talk with the doctor, but there is little hope she can get samples from him....she is not needy enough. I just cried with her.

My drug insurance company has decided to use the step plan. They decided one of my medicines needed to go through some plan where I had to try a bunch of others first. I have much need of that drug. I had to pay over $140 a bottle instead of the $12 when they covered it.

I don't see our Democrats taking this seriously, but it was one of their promises.

[Tellurian]

20. Just look around you..

contrast and compare.. Yours and your friend's storys are the type that needs to be addressed. The type that Big Pharma is taking a Lion share out of your fixed income. Is this the result of medicare cuts? If not, can you elaborate on that?

Everyday Hillary numbers are climbing. She has made credible commitments to so many womens groups, if she was ever spoofing them, she'd be run out of town on a rail. She knows exactly what she's doing and what needs to be done. She's not afraid of anyone or anything. Heh- just imagine Hillary with a Veto Pen slicing and dicing the pork out of the republican pork barrel..:hi:

[madfloridian]

21. Looking around me is very scary.

I think our country is in serious trouble, I think our seniors are going to be devastated by what is coming.

They could not even pass a bill to require bidding on drugs for Medicare D. Couldn't. Wouldn't.

Seniors and anyone should be able to buy drugs from other countries. We are forced to buy groceries from other countries with no regulations.

Can't you see the irony? Our Democrats control congress, but nothing.

I think everyone knows it will be Hillary and Bill. He is going to be active in the campaign now. It will another 4 years of a Bush or Clinton WH. If they had not been so close lately, I might feel differently.

The group Hillary took her stand with is actually now another party unto itself. That worries me. Harold Ford is traveling the country supposedly only for issues. When Carville and Schoen who are HIllary people said Harold Ford should be chairman of the DNC instead of Dean....they sent the message to us. Loud and clear.

Carville lets more slip about the attack on Dean after the election.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/838

But when Al From made the argument to the IRS that they were not really a Democratic group, that more Republicans vote for them...that worried me.

I do not like the inevitable nature of things right now.

[Tellurian]

25. Well just think..

They could not even pass a bill to require bidding on drugs for Medicare D. Couldn't. Wouldn't.

Seniors and anyone should be able to buy drugs from other countries. We are forced to buy groceries from other countries with no regulations.

ok, so let's say they passed a bill the other day, where you could order drugs on line from for example, Russia for 1/4 of the price of the high priced drug your using here. You are thrilled the bill sailed right through Congress. You're smiling because you're thinking of the "savings" and what you can do with the extra money.

Three months have passed and you're not feeling so good. You call the doctor, tell him the symptoms, he tells you to come into the office. While your there he asks you are you doing anything different than you've done before...you tell him..no, well, except for getting a good price break on your blood pressure medicine..you dig into your purse and pull out the new medication...the doctors walks over to his desk and looks at a list he received last week from the FDA.. The list comprises the names of drugs that have been reported and subsequently tested at the FDA Labs, as a) not the strength labeled on the bottle. b.) is tainted with unknown substances c.) mislabeled, and is really a drug for treating Alzheimer's.

So, it looks like the bill that was passed didn't contain the proper language to protect the quality control and the FDA standards required by our laws for the drugs eligible for importation... Well, thats not so bad, you only weren't feeling well. The doctor gave you a new script and you went back to the cvs and renewed your old prescription, thankful thats all it was and that you weren't one of the 83 casualties that died from bad drug interactions. So you see, invariably that was the case with the latest prescription drug bill. The safety language just wasn't in there to pass it as is, because the results could have been catastrophic and a public disaster.

As far as the bidding process for drug companies. Good idea.. The drug companies are addicted to the big money. They need to go into rehab to break the addiction!!! However, you do realize, we only hold a majority by 1 vote don't you? I know you do..so we still need to get the other side over on our side to make things fly.. We need a bigger majority. We're getting there. It's slow and steady that wins the race...and thats what we're doing. It'll happen, sooner rather than later. Keep the faith!

Oh, one more thing- forget Carville.. what a waste of time and energy talking about him! Get on to something positive in your life..that will make a difference..

[Capn Sunshine]

17. You have to understand, she's from FLORIDA

even the Dems are republicans down there, and the whole place is as close to a banana republic that you'll find in the states.

OK---- It's Louisiana with better beaches.
But she's been down so long it looks like up from where she is.

[madfloridian]

18. Ha Ha.

Did you see where my state bought the bottom of Biscayne Bay for 7.2 million?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1317

And they think it was a deal. What a mess.

[madfloridian]

19. You know what else I find interesting?

Look at the front page of the DLC website. It is a paean to Harold Ford...his picture is everywhere.

www.dlc.org

I remember when Dean became chair of that other party called the DNC, you know the one.

His picture was on the front page for a while...well, all hell broke loose. Everyone said it was too much of him...so they did what folks wanted and took the pictures down...now there is a teeny weeny one under the about our party section under the DNC.

So what does it matter? It doesn't. Just an observation. About what things are all about.

[dailykoff]

22. Let's hope the W years will have put a stake through the heart

of this stupid scam, which probably gained its feeble appeal from the go-go Reagan era.

W is too lame to disguise his greed so hopefully a majority of voters will reject any future shenanigans.

I have to say though that they've got the younger generation pretty well soured on SS from what I've seen, which is troubling.

[madfloridian]

23. Seniors are suffering and will continue to do so....

and our Democrats don't seem inclined to do anything about it.

[dailykoff]

24. We've got to hold their feet to the fire.

So whatever you're doing keep doing it.

[Tellurian]

26. Most likely the reason Pelosi took Impeachment off the table..

Impeachment proceedings suck all the oxygen out of the room. I'm sure the Democrats are running a parallel investigation while they 're attending to other pressing matters. We can't expect them to solve all our problems in a mere 5 mos after Bush has had a 7 yr head start on us, cutting and destroying the programs put in place by the Clinton Administration. It's only a matter of time before things start to normalize once again. We have to be strong enough to wait it out. And honor the laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest! So, try helping your friends for the time being, who aren't as strong as you are, until we get ourselves over this hump!

[slipslidingaway]

28. Thanks, missed this over the weekend. Since Bush took office

there has been almost 1 Trillion added to the SS Trust fund and there should be almost 2 Trillion in this fund in total. We do have those 'pieces of paper' that Bush mentioned but will our government be able to meet these obligations when the debt is due, most likely not so privatizing some portion of SS will probably be the answer IMO.

We have already been robbed a number of times and most avoid discussing the issue.

This reply makes sense to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3261084&mesg_id=3261193


Also your thought on this post would be appreciated, different ways to speak of benchmarks as well. Will check back later today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3265075&mesg_id=3265075

[madfloridian]

29. .

.