Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

There Is No Crisis (Social Security)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 09:06 AM
Original message
There Is No Crisis (Social Security)
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 09:37 AM by ProSense

There Is No Crisis

I imagine some readers who haven't been hanging around these parts for all that long might have justifiably been puzzled at the reaction to Obama's decision to try to make dealing with Social Security his signature attack on Clinton. It's true that Obama didn't assert that there was some huge crisis. But the fact remains that he put the idea out there that Social Security had a "problem" which needs to be fixed and that any serious presidential candidate needs to address the issue in clear detail.

So what's the big deal?

Beating back George Bush's plan to kill social security was probably the first major victory for the broadly defined netroots movement. I say that not really knowing if things would have been different if blogs and the like didn't exist, but it seemed like a victory. And while we never got together in a dark smoky room to plot our strategy, it basically ended up being a two-pronged one. The first was to beat back against the "social security crisis" frame much beloved by every very serious pundit in Washington. The second was to beat back against the idea that since George Bush had a "plan" (which he never actually did in any form until very near the end of the whole debate) the Democrats needed to have a "plan" of their own. The first part of this is a perpetual game of whack a mole, necessary on just about every day the Washington Post is still publishing. And the second was a very necessary emergency tourniquet which needed to be applied very quickly.

Beating back the steady stream of misinformation about the nonexistent crisis was done throughout the blogs, on Media Matters, etc. And trying to stop the Democrats from coming up with their own crackpot plan was done through a combination of bloggers trying to explain repeatedly that people like social security, they don't want to change it, opposing changing it is a political winner, and most importantly that once the minority party proposes their own plan they've guaranteed that something will happen. And that something would have been very bad. In addition, Josh Marshall especially kept an eager eye out for any wavering Democrat in Congress who decided that his/her awesome social security plan must be unveiled to the grateful public in order to beat them back with phone calls and whatever bad press could be created.

<...>

So, anyway, having someone suggest that Social Security is a problem which needs to be dealt with by any serious candidate is like the bat signal for people like me. There is no problem with Social Security. None at all. Whatever broader fiscal time bombs exist have absolutely nothing to do with Social Security. Once you get Fred Hiatt and the gang opining about the need fix that Social Security problem, you've increased the likelihood of something very bad happening.


Looming Catastrophe as Campaign Opportunity

04/24/2007

Statement by Senator John Kerry on 2007 Trustee Report on Social Security and Medicare

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) Chair of the Finance Subcommittee on Social Security, Pension and Family Policy, made the following statement on the 2007 Trustee's Report on Social Security and Medicare.

Click here to find a link to the report. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/

The Trustee's projections show that the Social Security Fund will be exhausted in 2041 and the Medicare Trust Fund in 2019 - each one year later than the projections in last year's reports. Both reports prove the continued need for bipartisan moves in Congress to strengthen these vitally important programs in the long-term. The report also shows that Social Security remains sound for decades and proves there is no need to privatize Social Security.

"The Trustee's report is a crystal clear message that any moves to privatize social security wouldn't just hurt this program for our seniors, but are also completely unnecessary," Senator Kerry said. "The report shows that Medicare's long-term viability is an urgent priority, but doesn't justify the arbitrary cuts to the program designed by the previous Republican Congress. We must not make reckless cuts to the program, but instead combat skyrocketing costs throughout our health care system and make responsible investments in Medicare. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve broader prevention and disease management services that increase quality for patients and decrease costs over time.

"We will work in our new Democratic Congress in a bipartisan manner to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, invest in their long term strength, and fight any moves to privatize and endanger these compacts with seniors who have worked a lifetime," Kerry added. "Social Security and Medicare have for decades kept faith with our bedrock American values by protecting our seniors from falling into poverty and keeping retired Americans and their families healthy and secure."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Kick!
Is this post visible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK_John Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. Right out of Rove's playbook, create a faux problem and then pretend to solve it and blame us. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. So is John Kerry lying?
when he says we need to strengthen social securiy? I don't get your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Strengthening Social Security
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 09:56 AM by ProSense
and saying there is a crisis in order to push privatization or a major fix are not the same things. Are they?

Bush has done everything to squeeze the program and seniors. Social Security doesn't need to be neglected, but there is no need to echo Bush's talking points about saving a program in crisis. There is no crisis.

The Trustee's projections show that the Social Security Fund will be exhausted in 2041 and the Medicare Trust Fund in 2019 - each one year later than the projections in last year's reports. Both reports prove the continued need for bipartisan moves in Congress to strengthen these vitally important programs in the long-term. The report also shows that Social Security remains sound for decades and proves there is no need to privatize Social Security.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. It needs fixing
Hillary is talking about private savings accounts. What do you think that is about? It's a back door to privatization. Just because Obama is lousy at pointing out the real problems we face, it doesnt make Hillary right about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:17 AM
Original message
I agree with you on the characterization of Hillary's plan.
The Dems need to leave Social Security alone. The debate is turning into one that points to a looming crisis. They are going down a road that they shouldn't, and the resulting confusion could lead to a damaging fix. Bush has 15 months left in office, we don't need to go down this road now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
18. That is a good point
We don't want Bush to get his hands on social security, I agree with that. But this is a fight we're going to have to have sooner or later, we are going to have to deal with the fact that we aren't going to have FICA surpuses to pad the budget anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
25. That is completely wrong
Remember, Hillary doesn't have a plan to fix the non-existant SS crisis? At the AARP debate, she said "I don't think there's a crisis" when asked about it, instead of repeating the rw meme "Young people today don't believe SS will be around when they grow old"

Hillary's American Dream Acct proposal has nothing to do with Social Security. It does not use FICA taxes (as the repukes and DLC want) and it does not cut benefits (as the repukes and the DLC want). Her proposal is merely a new form of 401k plan that includes govt incentives to save.

SS is not enough to live on. The assumption that people in retirement would live off of a combination of SS, pensions, and their own savings. HRC's proposal addresses the third. It has nothing to do with SS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Delete dupe. n/t
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 10:17 AM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. Paul Krugman: Obama and Social Security
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 09:59 AM by ProSense
October 30, 2007, 9:09 am

Obama and Social Security

As a policy matter, I don’t understand why Obama would choose to make a big deal of the small Social Security funding shortfall — which may not even exist.

As a political matter, I don’t understand why he would essentially try to undermine the first big victory progressives won against the Bush administration and the rightward tilt of the Beltway consensus.

This isn’t 1992. The DLC isn’t the Democratic party’s leading edge. The center isn’t somewhere between Joe Lieberman and Jon McCain. I can’t understand how Obama can be this out of touch.


That was a major victory, pushing Bush back on Social Security privatization. Why go there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Krugman failed to his facts straight on Obama's position
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 10:05 AM by flpoljunkie
In Des Moines, Obama spoke about his solutions for Social Security, and said President Bush's argument that the system is broken and needs and overhaul is an exaggeration.

"The underlying system is sound. The actual problem is a projected cash shortfall that can be readily solved. But the longer we wait to solve the problem, the bigger it grows," Obama said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071027/ap_po/obama_clinton

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Bush gave our surplus to the wealthy
The surplus should have been put in Al Gore's lock box. Now we're going to raise the FICA caps to get the money back from those Bush gave it to.

That's what ALL the candidates should say. And ALL the candidates should be criticized for not saying it, not just Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. A good point. The money has been spent, and must be returned to the Social Security coffers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. And Obama wants to take it from the middle class and uses rw talking points
about how kids today don't expect to recieve SS when they get old. Right out of the repuke playbook
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Total fiction, cuke!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. That is not helpful!
"But the longer we wait to solve the problem, the bigger it grows..."

That is what concerns everyone, the fact that somehow there is a crisis looming.

He is making this a major issue, and it is not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Nice try, but he never said there was a crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. This isn't a game.
I'm not trying score a "nice" point. This was a poor decision on Obama's part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. No, it's not a game--unless you are the corrupt corporate media who live to distort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
14. Depends on what the meaning of "crisis" is.

There are good leftwing reasons to go ahead and "fix the crisis" instead of fighting the perception of a crisis. If we increase the maximum income upon which we collect payroll taxes and it turns out we do not need that money, then we can just let people start retiring earlier. It isn't as though we actually need everyone working into the 60s. We could probably have everyone retiring at 50 and still provide their needs. Our economic system just is not established to accomplish that. If the reichwingers want to hand us a faux social security crisis to accomplish that purpose, why not run with it?


Now, as to whether there is a crisis or not and, if so, how to fix it....


A Government Accounting Office report from 2005 addressing questions on "Social Security Reforms" projects the accumulated funds to expire in 2041. They quote the Congressional Budget Office as placing that date sometime after 2050 (forget exactly which year).

Even if those dates are a century too early, there is certainly no harm in taking steps to ensure it is still working in 2150. The report sums up the three suggested reforms as follows:

o Decrease Benefits 13% - funds social security forever

o Increase Revenues 15% - funds social security forever

o Add Individual Retirement Accounts - does absolutely nothing for social security


Increased Revenues could come from increasing the maximum income for payroll taxes, or taxing non-payroll income, e.g. capital gains or dividends. Taxing additional payroll (4% of employees in the US currently pay no social security premiums) would, according to the report, extend the deadline only very slightly.

Link to the report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05193sp.pdf


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. "If the reichwingers want to hand us a faux social security crisis...why not run with it?"
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 10:30 AM by ProSense
That's exactly the danger of this, getting people to begin thinking about a way to fix a non-existing problem.

There is no social security crisis, period.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. So we just stick with the status quo instead of moving forward?

It's like the SCHIP thing. Rightists oppose expanding it because they see it as moving towards universal health care. They just might be correct! In which case I applaud our Democrats for this stealth move.

I see the same opportunity with the "Social Security Crisis". Add dividends as a source of income. Eliminate the maximum taxable amount per person (but continue the cap on the employer provided half). We could fully fund Social Security retirement -AND- lower the retirement age.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. So it's either pretend there is a crisis or stick with the status quo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. You do realize that your second link is EXACTLY what I have been saying? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Everything in that response is the basis for the OP, which is:
there is no crisis. I responded to your comment about the RW handing us a crisis that we should run with.

There is no need to do that and raise unnecessary alarm.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. SS cannot fully fund retirement, and was never meant to
see my above post which explains that retirement is assumed to be financed by a combo of SS, pensions, and individual savings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
15. OP: "The Trustee's projections show that the Social Security Fund will be exhausted in 2041..."
Medicare Trust Fund in 2019"

I guess it's only a "crisis" if you plan on living that long... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
19. K & R -- Social Security reform sure has been bubbling again on DU.
The age for qualifying for Social Security benefits may need to be raised to reflect longer American life spans, Sens. Thomas R. Carper D-Del., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said at a meeting yesterday on the federal budget. When Social Security was created in 1935, a 65-year-old could expect to live another 12.5 years. Today’s 65-year-olds often have another 17.5 years left, according to Social Security’s Web site. Some Americans will go on for years way beyond that projection, said Graham, whose predecessor, Strom Thurmond, died in 2003 at 100.

read more of DU thread...


Yesterday when I saw the above thread, I searched to see if Democratic Senator Thomas R. Carper was DLC, and sure enough, he appears to be. However, the first poster mentioned that, so I didn't comment. Perhaps Senator Graham believes that all citizens should die at a pre-arranged age?

What is the advantage to the corporatist of undermining Social Security? Perhaps they want citizens dependent upon some private corporation's wages for all their miserable lives, including the elderly years. Perhaps older folks should just die? That appears to be the pattern behind the lesson of our for-profit and twice-as-expensive-as-other-countries healthcare insurance system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
21. Amen, shout it from all the hilltops
Don't let the foxes tell the hens their house isn't safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
26. Social Security is FINE. Fully funded for longer than any other entitlement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Outback Bob Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office: "the excess disappears in 2017". Hmmmm.

"Under the Social Security Board of Trustees' projections, the excess disappears in 2017 and is replaced by a negative cash flow that is uninterrupted until 2041 (see Figure 1 and Table 1).(2) At that point, the balance of the Social Security trust funds is depleted, causing the program to lose its legal authority to pay full benefits.(3)"

From the Congressional Budget Office at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3650&type=0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. That's stated in the OP. Here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Social Security is "welfare"?
I ask, as if I didn't know where you were heading with your original comment!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC