Charlie Bass, Stealth Social Security Privateer

More on Social Security. . . . (4.00 / 2)

Jeez, Dean.  You could have asked -- I would have saved you some time. . . . While my files aren't updated to include Charlie's record from his last two terms in Congress (2003-2006), here are a few additional snippets:

* On July 25, 2001, Bass voted against an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds for carrying out the final report of President Bush's so-called Commission to Strengthen Social Security (H.R. 2590, Vote #273).  Among other recommendations, the Commission called for diverting 2.4 percentage points of the current 12.4 percent payroll tax from the Social Security Trust Fund into individual accounts, reducing the amount of money available to pay for Social Security benefits by $1.5 trillion between FY 2003 and FY 2012.

* As a member of the House Budget Committee, Charlie voted against an amendment to "reaffirm the off-budget status of Social Security" and require that the Trust Fund "be used exclusively to pay for benefits promised in current law." (House Budget Committee Vote, 3/21/01)

* Bass voted against language stating that "the total budget surplus should be reserved until the Congress and President enact comprehensive measures providing for the long-term solvency of Social Security while preserving its core protections for present and future generations of American families." (Fiscal 1999 Budget Resolution, Budget Committee Vote, 5/20/98)

* In 2002, the "60-Plus Association" spent more than $500,000 in pharmaceutical lobbyist money on pro-Bass advertisements.  This front organization backed Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security -- its chairman referred to the program as "an antiquated relic of a bygone era" and "a burden, not a blessing, for today's younger workers. (Washington Times, 3/14/01, 8/1/01, 8/14/00)

Lots more on this. . . .  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:29:20 AM CST

Didn't Charlie Bass hold town meetings (0.00 / 0)

discussing privatization during Bush's attempt to destroy Social Security? I believe elwood was there.

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

---

by: peacekeeper @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:32:57 AM CST

I think you're right (0.00 / 0)

because at the same time Jeb Bradley was holding town hall meetings on privatization in CD1.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 17:45:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, he did. (4.00 / 2)

He had the charts and talking points prepared by the White House.

And he didn't know how Social Security works. He confused the separate Supplemental Security Income with disability insurance in OASDI.

An understandable confusion - unless you're collecting a government paycheck to actually study and understand this stuff before voting.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:58:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wonder if Charlie.... (0.00 / 0)

Supports eliminating all corporate taxes, and the rest of the Republican tax plan which will increase taxes on workering and middle class?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

The Republicans will use the pretext of tax simplification, which really annoys me, because the tax code is ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated, and Democrats could, but haven't, figured out that the code could be simplified easily. Grumble, grumble. So we hand the whole tax simplification issue over to the GOP, who then use it as a pretext to slash taxes for the wealthy.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:30:17 AM CST

Is that like Tax Nullification ? n/t (4.00 / 1)

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 12:54:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The privatizers have two good reasons for their position. (0.00 / 0)

1) The are convinced that economic growth is good and anything a public corporation carries out is not part of the economy.  This accounts, for example for the argument that handing over the 17% of the GDP now generated by health care will register as an economic contraction.  It doesn't make sense, but that's how things are counted.

2) Public corporations (political jurisdictions) being responsible for delivering goods and services is BAD for the simple reason that these entities are responsive (or supposed to be) to the PUBLIC.  Being responsive to the public is bad because that reverses the preferred flow of power, from the top down.  Besides, regardless of what the Constitution says, throughout history the agents of government have served to serve the ruling elite by doling out the natural and man-made resources (think TVA dams) to benefit our "natural" rulers (white men descended from the DAR).

From the perspective of conservatives, the last three decades have been a huge and somewhat unexpected success.  While they managed to funnel the country's assets ever upward into the talons of the country club folk, they were sure the masses were going to take to the streets--like they did in the sixties.  Where conservatives fail is in not realizing that progressives learn from their mistakes and don't do the same thing over and over.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:48:02 AM CST

In the hope (perhaps naive) of having a rational discussion.... (0.00 / 0)

...I'd like to suggest that there really is a progressive argument in favor of implementing serious change to the current social security system - one which might indeed include privatization.

Statistically, the current system tranfers massive sums of money from minorities and the working poor to upper income white.  The structure that requires current workers at fund current retirees menas that younger, lower-income people pay taxes on which they may never see a return, while those who are the healthiest and live the longest receive that income.

ISSUE: If you die before the retirement age, your estate collects nothing (unless you have children under the age of 18). Currently, one in three black men in this country die before the age of 65...so while they may have paid social security taxes their entire life, neither they nor their family receive squat.

ISSUE: upper income whites are more likely to have higher life expetancies, more likely to have private pensions, and more likely to have appreciated mortgage-free assets in their retirement years.  They will collect perhaps even more than they put into the system, effectuating a transfer of wealth from minority low-income workers to those who may even have adequate provision for their retirement.

ISSUE:  There is no serious questioning that long-term returns on a personal 401k or retirement account exceeds the return on payments made into the social security system.  It is a no-brainer that most state and federal employees have exempted themselves from the system in order to have such an investment-based retirement plan.  The problem ensues when law requires one to be in the social security system, but then 'allows' people to invest in their own private IRAs.  Those most likely to have disposable income after paying Soc Sec taxes to invest in such a plan are already the high-income earners; thus, the system hobbles the ability of the lowest-income earners from planning for their retirement in a way that would maximize their returns.

The Rich get richer, the poor...

A blanket opposition to privatization is neither progressive nor a reasonable approach to making secure retirement work.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 14:57:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, the distinction between a private corporation (stock company) (0.00 / 0)

and a public corporation (nation, state, county town) is artificial, except for the fact that a person has ownership in one via a monetary infusion and the other via birth and resident status.  Also, the private corporation, at least so far, is less subject to "interference" from its members, leaving management greater autonomy in making decisions.  Both managers and public officials seem to have a preference for the latter arrangement because they appreciate unrestricted power and the ability to escape liability for performance and error.

That said, the distinction is actually irrelevant because just as the Constitution addresses the behavior of the agents of government, rather than the peculiarities of the people they might affect (remember "all men are created equal"), social programs represent a societal determination about how the obligation to provide for the general welfare is best met.  Again, the particular characteristics of the individual recipients of service are irrelevant.  Which is the main reason why I argue that the current Medicare system violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution since the hazards against which persons are to be secured against are not age specific.  It would make as much sense to protect only women from military invasion.
Social Security is different because humans typically become less physically sturdy as they age, even as their mental contributions are probably worth more.  But, again, it's a societal judgment that's independent of the particular recipient.

Conservatives prefer to make decisions on the basis of whom they affect because that enables them to maintain a stratified social structure.  A hierarchy is perferred by people who need to feel more important than someone else.  Egalitarians, by definition, don't care about status and the trimmings provided by wealth.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 15:21:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh, boy Thomas (0.00 / 0)

Instead of taking social security to task for the fact that black men die younger - let's fix the problem of black men dying younger. That would be health care reform, as opposed to health insurance fauxreform.

You also fail to mention survivor's benefits, and benefits to people with disabilities. Both are incredibly important to families. Until we stop black men from dying too young, we do at least know that if they have children, they will get survivor's benefits.

If I die before I get to collect Social Security, I'm perfectly okay with having paid into the system that protects a lot of old people from living in dire poverty. My grandmother was one of those people. Her husband deserted her when she had a very young son. She worked 2 jobs throughout her life, and supported her mother and her son. She worked at a bank, where she was paid a fraction of the amount her male coworkers were paid. She did have a small pension, and between the pension and Social Security she had enough money to pay her bills and live in a thrifty, yet comfortable way.

Social Security was never intended to be the sole means for retirees - it was supposed to be savings, pension, and Social Security. With stagnant wages, the elimination of pensions, (not to mention jobs or corporate loyalty to employees), Social Security is all that some folks will have to count on. Giving a single dime of that money to Wall St. to gamble with is unconscionable. If people want private retirement accounts to leave to their heirs, nothing is stopping them from opening them.

Instead of blaming Social Security for not being the be-all and end-all, why not look at the reasons retirees are in trouble, Thomas? Let's take a look at corporate America, shall we????


sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 17:56:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

PS (0.00 / 0)

This is not a "progressive" argument. These are the same arguments I heard back when Bush was pushing privatization. These are the talking points of the right wing bootstrap brigade, who would have no qualms about old people dying in poor farms - or on the sidewalks.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 18:00:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting points, but (4.00 / 1)

your argument rests on the presumption that the GOP are playing in good faith.

They are not.  They want the system weakened enough so that it does not make sense even to have it.  SS is an affront to their ideology about the nature of government.

After seeing so many 401ks get drastically diminished during this recession, I want a system like Social Security that is immune from the banksters.

You make interesting points about the poor and minorities, but there must be ways to address this without opting out of the system.  SS only works with full participation.  The money I put in doesn't go to me - as is the case for the money that might go to me if I live long enough. Take out that societal compact, and out goes Social.  And then before long, no Security.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 18:00:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you want society to care for others... (0.00 / 0)

...then it must make actuarial senese, and not just be accompanied by a good feeling.

When social security was created, there were 40 young workers for each retiree, whose life expectancy was 65.  In other words, 40 people helped carry the burden of one person, for, statistically, a year or less.

Today we are looking at 2 young workers paying for one retiree who will live an entire generation beyond retirement.

That can't go on forever.

Cutting benefits for those with other sources of income, raising the retirement age, and significantly raising the social security tax could make a dent in that actuarial problem.

But then again, so would allowing people to save for their own retirement, while preserving a guarenteed income for current retirees and those who retire without such a fund.  I'm not suggesting dropping people.  I am suggesting that one size does not fit all.

Susan, I agree that the demographic differences in life expectancy suck and we should work on that.  But the course of history has shown that that is going to take quite some time..more than I'm willing to reform social security.

Hannah, I dont care whether the investments are in private businesses or a public corporation.  That's not my objection.  I'll go your way on this.  It's just that saving for oneself over thge long haul returns a greater investment and greater security in retirement than paying TODAY for those who are reetiring TODAY, leaving little investment income.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 18:34:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is NOT true. (4.00 / 2)

Statistically, the current system tranfers massive sums of money from minorities and the working poor to upper income white.  The structure that requires current workers at fund current retirees menas that younger, lower-income people pay taxes on which they may never see a return, while those who are the healthiest and live the longest receive that income.

It require precision ignorance to believe this.

If you are married, especially if you have kids, your survivors get benefits if you die young. The notion that "Whites live longer so Social Security screws them!" is the sort of ignorant race-baiting that Glen Beck delights in. It's bogus.

It is also bogus because Social Security provides a greater return to lower income workers than higher-income workers. It is structured so that EVERY income group gets out more than they pay in - but the ratio is tilted to favor poorer contributors.

Next time you want to start a "rational discussion" bring actual facts to the table.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 06:05:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It is NOT bogus (0.00 / 0)

"..If you are married, especially if you have kids, your survivors get benefits if you die young..."

Your children only get benefits while they are under 18.  Very few 60 year old black men die with children under 18, and even if that is the case, those benefits do not continue very long.  Compare that to a private pension system such as I have in my state job, or as the residents of Chile have, and the entire corpus of contributions becomes part of the deceased's estate and passes to the children.

I'm sorry, but I have written three economics textbooks and have been an economist my entire life, and retirement planning is a particular are of interest for me.  You can defend social security all you want, but it is a Ponzi scheme that will crush the next generation of young voters.  

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 07:28:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

it saddens me (4.00 / 1)

when you engage in the typical rhetoric of the right, Thomas.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It's the most successful anti-poverty measure ever created in the US. It's been working quite well, with only minor tweaking required for nearly 80 years.

The right wants to destroy Social Security - always has. The right wants to destroy anything that does any good for anyone not in the top 2% of the income bracket in this country.

I can't help but imagine how great it would be if guys like you spent time on how to make Social Security better, instead of rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect of turning over taxpayer dollars to the same folks who are responsible for the financial devastation we've experienced in the last decade.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:05:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You make a common error... (0.00 / 0)

...when you say, "turning over taxpayer dollars to the same folks who are responsible for the financial devastation we've experienced in the last decade."

When one purchases stocks, bonds, REIT investments, and other shares, the funds do NOT go to the companies.  People often seem to think that if they buy Harley stock, that it is going to Harley. It is NOT.  It is merely going to other Americans who have decided to sell their stock.  Investments in these markets do not enrich these companies.

If you are referring to the fact that investments houses adn brokerage firms handle the transactions and earn income from the purchase transaction, you make the mistake of characetrizing all of them because of some very bad apples (who, in my opinion, should have been alowed to fail).  Fidelity is not responsible for Merryl Lynch; Charles Schwabe and E*Trade are not rresponsible for AIG.

While the system has worked so far, it has worked because demographics favored it.  It no longer does.  Period.

I do have an alternative:  individual accounst for every American, OWNED by that family, not by the government. Mandatory deducstions (as we have now), mandatory income streams (as we have now), and safety nest for the non-working and working poor would all be key elements.  It CAN work, and it doesnt have to be opposed simply because a good feeling about transferring wealth helter-skeleter in the current system.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:31:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

it saddens me (0.00 / 0)

when you engage in the typical rhetoric of the right, Thomas.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It's the most successful anti-poverty measure ever created in the US. It's been working quite well, with only minor tweaking required for nearly 80 years.

The right wants to destroy Social Security - always has. The right wants to destroy anything that does any good for anyone not in the top 2% of the income bracket in this country.

I can't help but imagine how great it would be if guys like you spent time on how to make Social Security better, instead of rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect of turning over taxpayer dollars to the same folks who are responsible for the financial devastation we've experienced in the last decade.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:05:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Whose engaging in rhetoric now ? ;-) (0.00 / 0)

"...The right wants to destroy anything that does any good for anyone not in the top 2% of the income bracket in this country...."

Well, it's the left and right together that has conveniently exempted government employees from the system.  It's the left and right together that has conveniently enabled themsevlves to partake of a pension plan that grows over time. You don't think they chose a poor system for themselves do you?

What I know is this: the amount I would receive from social security is less than what I would receive if my contributions had gone into my account.

Repeat: I am not against a safety net for the poor.  But I don't understand WHY those introducing a privatization element do so.  It's good enough to shout, "No Privatization!"   I want to know WHY.  I want to know WHY it can't be on the table with other options such as an income limit, etc.  The fact that [privatization "is a talking point of the right" is not an acceptable answer.  The Right is not always wrong, and the Left is not always right.  This is harsh partisan thinking - not reasonable discussion.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 13:38:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

An economist who doesn't understand what a Ponzi scheme is. (0.00 / 0)

Who pulls magic numbers out of his... hat, such as "60" as a great dividing line between the races.

You have been misled by a generation of ideological zealots in the field of economics, whose blind faith in free markets, ignorance of how corporations actually work, and dismissal of Keynes as somehow Outside the Model have led to a near new Depression.

I wouldn't be bragging about academic economic credentials if I were you.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 17:48:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Easy Fixes (0.00 / 0)

SS needs some minor tweaking to remain viable - it's  a distraction.  If you look at long-term federal outlays, SS barely budges.  The structural problems with the deficit are in Medicare and Medicaid.  Fix those - with REAL health care reform and problem solved.

The SS discussion should be handled like it was in the 80's...everything on the table except privatization.  Raise taxes, reduce some benefits (I favor means testing - I'm certainly hopeful that I won't need as much as others do), and leave the fund alone.

---

by: j cicirelli @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 08:31:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]