About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

NH-Sen: Generation X to be Robbed in Broad Daylight

by: Dean Barker

Sun Jul 11, 2010 at 08:30:21 AM EDT


Generation X (born 1961-1981, roughly) is about to be robbed in broad daylight, and the US Senate race in New Hampshire is a critically important piece to stopping that crime.

My generation has already witnessed a diminishing American dream, with our working lives more or less matching the failed Republican economic policy that has dominated this country since, and because of, the Ronald Reagan re-alignment.  We have endured under absurdly high student loan debt, impossibly priced homes, stagnant wages, out of control heath insurance costs, stalled 401ks, and an expensive energy policy that has been basically unchanged since we counted our years in single digits.

And here we stand, trying to hold on to what we have scraped together for our families for what could be a very long L-shaped "recovery." Or "Long Depression." Pick your own terminology.

What's next for us?  The very real possibility that we will have part of the social compact we have put decades of our earnings in yanked up from under us in the name of Austerity.

This theft, i.e., the raising of the retirement age for Social Security, I think is actually a likely outcome.  It will be a theft won or lost on the margins of the numbers in the US Senate, because you know as well as I that a few out-of-touch Democrats will go along with this predominately GOP scheme.

And here's the really slimy part.  Politicians, from both parties, are well aware that in a mid-term election, the voting skews older.  So they are not going to go anywhere near advocating raising the retirement age on Baby Boomers.  Instead, they will do it on the ones they think are paying less attention.  That would be you, Gen X-er.

Where do the US Senate candidates from New Hampshire stand on this?  Wealthy Republican Bill Binnie "said he would support raising the retirement age" along with some privatization schemes but "would not include seniors."

Ovide Lamontagne? "He too favors raising the retirement age."

Jim Bender and Kelly Ayotte play it cute.  The former says nothing, while the latter tries really hard to couch the crime in innocence:

Ayotte said she would "put all the ideas on the table" while protecting people who are close to retirement.
Get that?  That's another way of saying "Too bad for you, Gen X. I know who votes in mid-terms."

There is only one candidate in this race who has said flat out he does not support raising the retirement age.  Paul Hodes.

It's time to wake up, Generation X.  We used to vote on things that didn't necessarily come directly to our doors.  But now it is getting personal.  Are you going to let Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest and his war unrelated to 9/11 be one day balanced on your 69 year-old back?

Dean Barker :: NH-Sen: Generation X to be Robbed in Broad Daylight
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Here's one (4.00 / 2)
67 year old about to retire when I turn 68, with daughters and sons-in-law in their 40s, who is not going to abandon you or them.  I for one know that raising the cap on the wages subject to SS will solve the problems with it, that the problem is healthcare, not SS, and the new law is a first step to solving that problem, and that putting SS money in the stock market is a dreadful idea, unless we completely reform our economy and make the market subject to regulation to keep the greedsters at bay.  
I will not vote for anyone who thinks raising the retirement age is a good idea.  Again, I refer to this.

So Kelly Ayotte wants to consider (4.00 / 1)
reversing the Bush tax cuts, raising the estate and capital gains taxes, and using some of the new revenue to support Social Security benefits?

That would come under "all ideas on the table," right?


Generation X (0.00 / 0)
Maybe Hodes should get Bon Jovi to do a campaign ad.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner


Isn't the plight of Gen Xers like me (4.00 / 1)
bad enough without bringing up the kings of acid wash jeans?

I'm already paying a lifetime of penance in the woods for teen years spent in NJ malls.

On the other hand, " livin' on a prayer" does have a nice SS-gutting ring to it.

birch, finch, beech


[ Parent ]
Fiscal austerity: wanted dead or alive. (4.00 / 1)


--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner


[ Parent ]
Hey, it's no secret I disagree with most here on this issue.... (0.00 / 0)
Nonetheless, I'd like to hear (honestly) some reasonable alternatives.

The ratio of young workers to retirees, combined with the extended life expectancy of Americans, presents a clear case for a coming train wreck on funding social security (If we dont agree on that point, the conversation is over).

90 years ago, 40 workers paid taxes to support one retiree who statistically lived one year beyond retirement.

Within the next 15 years, 4 workers workers will be paying taxes to support one retiree who statistically will live 15-20 years beyond retirement.

How does one reconcile this?

1) Increase Retirement age, just as life expectancy has increased.
2) Cap Payments to a livable amount, despite lifetime contributions.
3) Eliminate Payments for those with alternative income sources.
4) Raise Taxes.
5) Design an entirely new system

The oft-quoted idea of forcing govt employees into the system, or of eliminating the upper income cut-off will NOT solve the problem.  The Numbers do NOT work, so they're off the table.

Of the above, I happen to prefer a 5-3-2-1-4 approach...but I'm curious about the rest of you.

It is NOT good enough to simply be "against" something (GOP disease is contagious....)  WHAT is the proactive, workable alternative?


What would a new system look like? (0.00 / 0)
SS began in the 1930s, I believe.  That's less than 90 years ago.  Retirement ages were raised in the 1980s as well.  To collect the full SS I was entitled to, I had to wait until I was 66.  Isn't it time to raise the limit on what is subject to SS taxes, since that has not been done in 25 years or so?  Also, although they contributed, should people like Dick Cheney or members of the Walmart family be eligible to continue to collect since their means are so much greater than the rest?  

[ Parent ]
Yes, 1935...I only meant to show the change in Demographics by using 90 years... (0.00 / 0)
Raise the limit?  Sure, I have no problem with that...as long as we objectively understand that that will NOT come CLOSE to closing the gap.  Yes, it will increase revenue...but Demographics is working against us.

As for your last comment, that was precisely my points #2 & 3 above, which I favor.

An alternative system which would avoid the throes of Demographic changes is one where funds were saved over the course of years and earning compuinded interest, rather than taxing current workers for current retirees with no such growth opportunity.


[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
This is a straw dog.  Raising the cap on social security wages would go a very long way toward fixing what is not the big problem, which is healthcare for the wave of retirees coming into Medicare.

And if we have to raise the retirement age, which I object to because we really haven't extended the life span as much as some people seem to believe (as elwood noted in one of his comments), it needs to be accompanied by good disability benefits to those whose jobs are particularly hard on their bodies.


[ Parent ]
Show me the numbers. (0.00 / 0)
It's very populist to say "raise the cap!" (and I agree), but I've never seen a single study showing it would make a dent in the overall problem.  A mere assertion doesn't cut it.

[ Parent ]
According to the CBO July 6, 2010 press release (0.00 / 0)
"...Raising the cap to $250,000 without providing new benefits would improve cash flow in 2080 by 0.6% of GDP, cutting the program deficit in half."

That's cutting a deficit (not making it solvent), after 70 years, assuming no new benefits....


[ Parent ]
Remove, not raise the cap (0.00 / 0)
According to the same study you cite, REMOVING the cap on the wealthy would eliminate the deficit through 2040.

Which, I assume is why you try to change the conversation to raising the cap. not removing it.

It is hard to predict economic conditions more than 30 years in the future.  


[ Parent ]
C'mon Paul, 2030? (0.00 / 0)
Thats less than 20 years...Baby-boomers get theres, and to hell with the younger generation?  Think long-term...

[ Parent ]
Ummm...no (0.00 / 0)
I wrote 2040, not 2030

[ Parent ]
According to your campaign web page, Thom (0.00 / 0)
 you are simply against Social Security, saying it is a Ponzi scheme and should be ended or privatized. You remember, it is near the end of your article blasting President Obama's health care reform bill.

Surely, as an economist, you are aware that simply removing the income caps on mandatory contributions to Social Secuirty will extend the health of this program well into the future. Demographics, decades out, are a chancy prediction,at best.  

Frankly, I believe Social Secuirty is one of the most important and progressive legislative accomplishments in American history.

Your articles - " Time to Scrap Social Security" and "Social Security - A Bad Idea, getting worse" - currently on your campaign web page - shows your true beliefs.  


[ Parent ]
Old news, Paul. (0.00 / 0)
As I said above,

1) Raising the cap is populist, but the numbers dont work.  Show me numbers, not assertions.

2) Yes, I believe a new system is needed. Nostalgia for what worked in 1935 is not going to save a system that needs to be designed for 2035 demographis and life spans.  


[ Parent ]
P.S. (0.00 / 0)
It's not on my campaign website..I'm not running for federal office.  It's on a political blog I've maintained for years.

[ Parent ]
My bad (0.00 / 0)
I conflated your website with your campaign website, for what difference that makes.  

[ Parent ]
As Reagan would say, (0.00 / 0)
There you go again - talking about raising the cap when others are talking about eliminating the cap - which , ALONE, would eliminate the deficit for the next 30 years, according to the study you cite.

As to your hope that the government gets out of the way of people gambling their retirement hopes in the stock market, the serial crashes of the stock market during the past 10 years should be a dash of cold water. I am sure it will make brokers and Wall Street rich with billions in extra commissions - but that is not MY goal. I am not "nostalgic" for the era of greedy robber-baron unfettered, unregulated Wall Streetism that existed in their late 19th century. Not with the safety net for our oldsters. Nor should you be.


[ Parent ]
Money is like the written word. You have more transactions to mediate, (0.00 / 0)
you use more.
Money used to be limited by the available supply of various metals out of which it was formed (native Americans actually had the right idea using sea shells).  What's important isn't the token, but the credibility of the people who use it.

Restricting some people's access to currency is like prohibiting the acquisition of reading and writing skills by some population.  Pre-literate societies get along quite well, until the literate ones aim to put one over on them.


[ Parent ]
"Extended life expectancy" (0.00 / 0)
This is - what's the technical term? - BOH-OH-GUS.

In the 75 years or so since Social Security began, the average lifetime PAST 65 has increased just a bit - less than three years. And the retirement age - meaning, when a worker can collect full benefits from the system - has been delayed a couple of years alongside it.

The "average life expectancy" has increased a LOT - because infant mortality is much lower than it was in the 1930s. But it isn't very much a case of "people live longer." It's a case of "babies don't die so much."

And, that means that these two common claims are wrong:

  1. "Asking oldsters to work a couple of years more is only fair, since they live maybe a decade longer than they used to!"
  2. "Aging oldsters are a new, real problem!"

Those babies who didn't die, lived to work and pay into the Social Security System - and earn their benefits.

There are several other bits of misinformation in your comment - I'll save that for a diary on the topic.


[ Parent ]
(Meaning the topic of common misconceptions (0.00 / 0)
regarding SocSec. There are a lot of them.)

[ Parent ]
BOH-OH-GUS back at ya' (0.00 / 0)
Life expectency in the US in 2008 was 78.4 years....

[ Parent ]
It seems you ignored what elwood was saying (4.00 / 2)
This topic was covered at Daily Kos:
For Social Security purposes, the correct question is not how many live to age 65, but rather how long those reaching age 65 live thereafter. Here the numbers are not as dramatic. In 1940, men who survived to age 65 had a remaining life expectancy of 12.7 years. Today, a 65 year old man can expect to live not quite three years longer than he might have in 1940, or 15.3 years beyond reaching age 65. For women, the comparable numbers are 14.7 years beyond age 65 in 1940; 19.6 years in 1990.

If you want 2006 numbers, try here. For men, the life expectancy at 65 is up to 17, but women are up only slightly to 19.72. So, men are living about four years longer than they did in 1940, and women five.

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?


[ Parent ]
You're confused. (0.00 / 0)
So, please stop spreading misinformation.

The "average life expectancy in 2008" has no relevance here.

The relevant data are:

How much longer a 65-year-old worker lived, on average, in 1935, and

How much longer a 65-year-old worker lives, on average, today.


[ Parent ]
Thom, you disagree with the CBO (0.00 / 0)
Why do you say that removing the upper limit on SS contributions - which simply favors the wealthy - is off the table because it does not solve the problem?

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, such a move would likely preserve solvency for the next 75 years.

Of course, making demographic or economic projections that far out is kinda illusory.


[ Parent ]
Only without providing increased benefits (CBO) (0.00 / 0)
Are you saying you favor freezing social security payments at current levels for the next 75 years?

[ Parent ]
What I am saying (0.00 / 0)
is what the CBO said in July - removing the cap for the wealthy will remove the deficit until 2040. No need to change the benefit formula.

I am also saying that neither you nor I have any idea what the world or our economy will look like post-2040.

enough.


[ Parent ]
from MoJo (0.00 / 0)
http://motherjones.com/kevin-d...

A whole list of fixes for Social Security. Pick a few and work it out.

This is a particularly thorny issue at a time when an unemployed person over the age of 50 is unlikely to find work. On the plus side - we can't afford health care, either, so we're likely to die before we ever get to collect Social Security.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty



Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox