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
Sorry, Generation X. All the money you've faithfully put into the system for fifteen, twenty years, isn't coming back to you as agreed on the other side. It's "just math."
You want to hear some other math? POTUS Wannabe Mark Warner is worth at least $100 million dollars.
Over the course of the past couple of weeks we've been talking about how the War On Social Security was about to get under way and what happens when countries choose to privatize their systems.
Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?
We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.
"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"
That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.
Politicians like campaign finance challenged Frank Guinta are too chicken to enact their privatization dreams on seniors - they know where the votes come from.
So the plan is to steal the money that Generation X, and to a lesser extent, Millenials, have been putting into the system, in some cases for three decades plus, by not giving it to them on the other side.
You didn't hear a peep from the phony deficit hawk crowd when we paid for a second, unnecessary war on credit. Or when Bush told us to go shopping and gave giant tax giveaways to billionaires. Or note how now that those tax giveaways are set to expire, Republicans, unconcerned with the overt hypocrisy of the situation, are throwing a hissy fit on behalf of their corporate taskmasters. Or a whole host of other things.
Nope. The way to balancing the budget is to steal the money an entire generation of workers have been faithfully putting into the system.
There is no clear evidence yet that President Obama is on your side here either. The Catfood Commission will be coming out with their proposals soon, and the Villagers, detached from the economic reality regular Americans are facing, will rush to unite the election results with it.
I don't really know what to do about this other than to ask that you kindly inform those busy twenty-somethings to forty-somethings trying to make ends meet in the working world that their future Social Security retirement age and benefits, and perhaps even the system itself, are in direct peril.
UPDATE: Well that was fast. The Catfooders are already out of the gate. They want to balance the budget by giving the super-rich even more money and eroding Social Security further. What a farce. Does the President know just how close he is to losing whole armies of supporters? So much of his re-election prospects will depend on how he reacts to this commision.
So if you've been following my work lately, you know that there is a renewed effort underway to change Social Security, and that the fight officially began just this very morning.
Now what's supposed to happen is that a television ad buy sponsored by a Wall Street billionaire is supposed to get you enthused about cutting your own Social Security benefits in the future; this is the tip of a "disinformation iceberg" that is trying to get you to act, right now, because if you don't you will never, ever, ever, ever, see a single dime of Social Security when you get older.
I was on a "let's talk strategy" conference call today that laid out some ideas for the "next steps"; we'll be talking about that call over the next couple of stories...but for today, we're going to talk about something you can do that will bring the message right to your favorite Member of Congress.
It is my job to bring to you not just the news that took place, but the news that has yet to happen.
Today, that's exactly what we have.
There is a war coming to try to change Social Security from a social safety net to a "revenue stream" for certain corporate interests, and that war is set to begin Tuesday morning, according to information that was provided to me yesterday afternoon.
Follow along, and you'll be both forewarned and forearmed.
With the election over, it's time to move on to new things, and the folks at the Campaign for America's Future have asked me to do some writing about Social Security, which sounds like some big fun, so here we are.
We're going to start with some reasonably simple stuff today, just to get your feet wet; by the time we get a few stories down the road there will be some complicated economic analysis to work through-but let's begin today by looking a bit south.
Those who support privatizing Social Security in this country often point to Chile as an example we could follow, and that seems like a good place to get the conversation going...so set your personal WayBack Machine to Santiago, May, 1981, and let's see what we can learn.
After numerous debates, and many direct questions from both the debate panelists and Carol Shea-Porter herself, Frank Guinta finally admitted tonight that he will protect Social Security.
Because of the promise made to "certain Americans."
Too bad for you Generation X. And you, Millenials. And you too, five and six-year olds.
Steve Benen at Political Animal on the Washington Monthly site is on a roll this morning! Quoting from another article at that site he clarifies something I was talking about yesterday with a friend] (see below the fold)
Has Frank Guinta had a change of heart about privatizing Social Security? Or is he lying about his intentions? Voters deserve an answer.
Frank Guinta, September 29, 2010:
I believe we need a solution to preserve Social Security which does not privatize the system, does not raise taxes, and does not cut existing benefits.
Frank Guinta, May 22, 2010:
Government's the problem here, ladies and gentlemen. When Social Security was created, you didn't have the wealth of private sector solutions for lifetime savings that you have today. We have to honor the obligations that have been made to those who are reliant on the federal government - older generations. But future generations should seek different private sector solutions and have personal responsibility start to lead the way. My kids are 6 and 5. They shouldn't know what Social Security is!
I've said this before in a general sense. And the continuing scandal over Frank Guinta's refusal to prove that $355,000 of his campaign money came from him is unfairly blocking this "hair-on-fire" issue from getting the traction it deserves.
But let's be clear. A Congress with a Frank Guinta in it is one step closer to two generations of workers getting the reward of their Social Security, to which system they have been contributing for years, stolen from them:
For two decades I've been paying into the system for those older than me.
Frank doesn't want his kids or anyone else's kids to do the same for me. He doesn't even want them to know what Social Security is.
When pressed by Carol Shea-Porter at the debate on how he was going to do this while at the same time honoring the commitment to those already in the system, he was either too ignorant or too dishonest to answer outside of his non-answering talking points.
This is a huge deal. Frank Guinta might be able to rely on hundreds of thousands of mystery money dollars to get him through retirement, but you and I and regular law-abiding folks don't have access to those kinds of magical bank accounts.
Do you have friends and neighbors who are Millenials or Ge X-ers in the first district? Or others who care about them? Because they need to know ASAP.
Miami, Florida, September 13, 2018 (FNS)-Facing pressure from voters to "do something" following the disaster caused by the privatization of Social Security, the White House today announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is awarding a $2 billion contract to the Halliburton Company for the purchase of 22,000 "cardboard condos" that will be installed in public parks around the Miami area in an effort to alleviate the problem of homelessness among the impoverished elderly.
"Having homeless senior citizens drag their appliance boxes all over the city reduces the community's aesthetic appeal and leads to complaints", said Halliburton spokesman Tendei Furlough. "The new modular design, combined with our ability to print attractive images on the outside of the boxes, guarantees both increased protection from winter weather and fewer complaints from affected neighborhoods."
FEMA's Director of Emergency Housing Resources Spike Fromula agreed: "We thought we had a real problem with homelessness in a number of our major cities after the Social Security safety net collapsed...but now, we think...well, we think we have a way to wrap the problem up in a neat little package."
Guinta said he would not stop Social Security benefits for those currently receiving them, but he was less precise about his ideas for continuing to fund the system.
"Is there a different approach that we should be taking for those who aren't even in the system yet when they are in the system 30 or 40 years from now?" he said. "I think we should probably take a look at that so it is solvent for the long term."
Let's not forget that Social Security is something the government created. And now we're trying to have a government solution to a problem government created. Government's the problem here ladies and gentlemen. When Social Security was created, we didn't have the wealth of private sector solution for lifetime savings that you do today. We have to honor the obligations that have been made to those who are reliant on the federal government - older generations. But future generations should seek different private sector solutions and have personal responsibility start to lead the way. My kids are 6 and 5. They shouldn't know what Social Security is!
Frank Guinta, now:
The only way to ensure Social Security's future is to cut federal spending, so we can maintain the commitments we've made to our nation's seniors. I believe we need a solution to preserve Social Security which does not privatize the system, does not raise taxes, and does not cut existing benefits.
Let's be clear here. Team Guinta knows that some of the extreme positions he admitted to during the primary are unacceptable to the general electorate.
So he lies, while trying really hard not to make it look like a lie. Note the "commitments we've made to our nation's seniors" in the second quote. That gives him the out when he's in office later, destroying Social Security for all of our children.
Relatedly, if you follow the link on the second quote, you'll see that Frank has finally figured out that the solvency deadline on SS is 2037. Carol Shea-Porter had to educate him on that in the debate this week.
The thing I love about Carol's campaigns - it happens every cycle - is the way she is so frugal with her spending and activity at first, to the point of people wondering where the campaign is, and then all of a sudden there is this exponentially blossoming number of items that appear as you get closer to the general election. She has her own tempo for running a race, and by the metrics of the permanent nature of campaigning it shouldn't work. But it does work, and it works exceedingly well.
Because it has been a day full of items from CSP both on the campaign and in Congress, I am just going to paste the various press releases below the fold for your viewing pleasure.
Patricia Reid is not in her 70s, an age when many Americans continue to work. She is not even in her 60s. She is just 57.
But four years after losing her job she cannot, in her darkest moments, escape a nagging thought: she may never work again.
...After other recent downturns, older people who lost jobs fretted about how long it would take to return to the work force and worried that they might never recover their former incomes. But today, because it will take years to absorb the giant pool of unemployed at the economy's recent pace, many of these older people may simply age out of the labor force before their luck changes.
The scene: A bunker deep below the streets of Washington. A bare light bulb covered by a green shade hangs from the ceiling. It swings back and forth casting shadows in the gloomy room. Republican operatives, Secret Agents G, O, and P, huddle over a table below the light.
"We're in trouble. Big, big trouble," says Agent G. "Word of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan's 'Roadmap for America' has leaked. News is spreading about Ryan's plan for Medicare and Social Security that he wants to become law after the November election. The public will be shocked if it finds out about his plan."
"Well, just what's so terrible about Ryan's plan?" says Agent O.
"Just listen," replies Agent G. "Here's what Ezra Klein writes in the Washington Post. 'To move us into surpluses, Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health care costs. Medicaid is also privatized . . . And beyond health care, Social Security gets guaranteed private accounts that CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says will actually cost more than the present arrangement, . . ."
" . . . The money seniors would get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or how much health-care they purchase ."
"And here," continues Agent G, "is what Frank Rich writes in the New York Times. 'His (Ryan's) much publicized Roadmap for America's Future . . . not only revives the failed Bush proposal of partially privatizing Social Security but tops him by replacing Medicare with a voucher system that, like Ryan's skewed tax cuts, would benefit the superrich while raising taxes and medical costs for everyone else."
"Well, if Ryan's plan is so bad," says Agent P. "Let's just run from it. Pretend that it isn't a Republican plan."
"We can't do that," replies Agent G. "Too many Republicans have endorsed it. Wisconsin congressman Sean Duffy, Pennsylvania senatorial candidate Pat Toomey, Indiana Senate candidate Dan Coats, and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul all favor Ryan's privatization of Social Security. Do you realize that seniors would have lost trillions during the recession had Social Security been privatized? Because Social Security was government-run and not tied to the plunging stock market, no one lost a penny."
"Okay," says Agent P, "we'll try something else. Let's say that the plan is pie-in-the sky; that Ryan is a nobody so nothing will come from his plan."
"But Ryan isn't a nobody," responds Agent G. "He's very influential. Here's what Frank Rich wrote about Ryan in the Times, 'Take Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who has been relentlessly promoted by the right as the intellectual golden boy of the G.O.P. and who would be elevated to chairman of the powerful budget committee in a Republican House.' After the election, Ryan will be in a great position to put his plan into effect. But we've got to stop voters from finding out about his plan before the election, or they'll be very upset."
"What's the opposition saying about Social Security," says Agent O.
"Democratic congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter signed a letter to the President which reads in part, "We oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age. . . . We also oppose any effort to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part . . . if any of the Commission's recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them." (Barker, Blue Hampshire).
"The voters will like what she said" blurts Agent G, "We're in trouble. Big, big trouble. We can only hope voters don't find out about Ryan's plan before the November election. Just keep your fingers crossed."
This column appeared first in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum
Perhaps you saw this ray of light against Alan Simpson and his Catfood Commission yesterday?
Democrats led by Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva are drawing a line in the sand before the White House's fiscal commission: If your report recommends cuts or other changes to Social Security, they will say, you'll lose our support.
..."We oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age," the letter reads. "We also oppose any effort to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part.... If any of the Commission's recommendations cut or diminish Social Security in any way, we will stand firmly against them."
So I contacted Shea-Porter's office to see if she had heard about the letter and whether or not she is on board with it.
Today I heard back: she is a co-signer of it.
One more reason out of so many to be proud of Carol Shea-Porter and her work in Congress on behalf of the rest of us. Please thank her yourself.
And adding: There are opportunities, some of them widely popular with the public at large, on which to run to the left of the President this fall. This is clearly one of them. The other major one, imo, is getting out of Afghanistan.
Adding-er: Full text of the letter below the fold.
They're too chicken to go after Boomers and seniors - they know it'll cost them votes. Instead, New Hampshire Republican candidates for federal office are gunning to loot Gen X-ers and Millenials and the disabled, who they think are paying less attention.
Frank Guinta:
When it comes to reforming Social Security and other programs, he would consider creating personal accounts and increasing the retirement age.
"Everything has to be on the table," said Guinta.
Sean Mahoney:
"But the younger generations, they need to understand there should be other options. Your retirement age may be later in life than your parents' were."He also said younger people should "be able to have a private option, take some ownership over your own retirement."
