MyDD :: A Problem With Opposing Destruction

A Problem With Opposing Destruction

by Chris Bowers, Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:39:51 PM EST

When trying to become the party of reform, we face something of a dilemma in that we oppose the destruction of Social Security. In fact, one of the core elements of the Repub party's strategy in the Social Security debate is to paint Democrats as "the Party of the Past" and anti-reform:

The debate about Social Security is going to be a monumental clash of ideas -- and it's important for the conservative movement that we win both the battle of ideas and the legislation that will give those ideas life. The Democrat Party leadership, the AARP, and many others will go after Social Security reform hammer and tongs. ... But Democrats and liberals are in a precarious position; they are attempting to block reform to a system that almost every serious-minded person concedes needs it. They are in a position of arguing against modernizing a system created almost four generations ago. Increasingly the Democrat Party is the party of obstruction and opposition. It is the Party of the Past.

This actually is a very serious problem. I had a discussion about this last Friday with my brother, where he argued that we are in trouble if we argue that no changes to Social Security need to be made, because we will actually sound conservative and anti-reform in so doing. His solution was that Democrats should propose ending the cap on social Security taxes which currently exists somewhere around the first $85,000 of salary. My counter-argument was that telling the truth, that Social Security is running a surplus and is fully funded for decades, is actually such a new argument in the minds of most people that we will sound like the ones with fresh ideas by defending Social Security. Also, I argued that if we claim that Social Security is fully funded and push for changes in the plan, then we will actually feed into the lies coming from conservatives about Social Security's "unfunded liability," and cement the need for destruction in the minds of more people. (Unfortunately, before we could hash things out more, that discussion came to an end when the owner of the bar we were in told me that the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo was wrong because "we shouldn't stop Christians from killing Muslims," and then proceeded to tell me that I hate America. It is too bad, because I had been going there for four years, but I will never be going back.)

It is a discussion I would like to continue here, largely because I am not certain that my solution is enough. As Mark Schimdt notes:

Josh Marshall, Paul Krugman and others have aggressively driven home the point that the goal of the right here is to destroy Social Security. And there is no doubt that that is what the result would be if what we assume to be the White House plan became law. But while there is a faction of the right that would like to destroy Social Security, there is obviously also a considerable faction that wants only to destroy the political advantage that Democrats and liberals still get from Social Security. That's the faction that Wehner is addressing, and he's bascially arguing -- feebly, I think -- that they can't put up a merely symbolic fight, but have to actually win the legislation.

For the free-lunch faction, "winning" on Social Security is all defined in the last two sentences of the first paragraph of Wehner's memo. It involves putting the Democrats in a position where they do nothing but defend an old and boring program for most of the year. Republicans will appear to be the party of innovation, change, economic opportunity, while Democrats are the party of security, limited choices, old programs and old people. Democrats won't control the agenda, they'll just spend the year being against something, and they won't be speaking to the actual economic anxieties of younger people or working-age adults, because Social Security is a very limited response to those anxieties.

Brad Plummer argues that we should respond as follows:

[W]e oppose the plan because right now we need to focus on looming budget and Medicare crises, so borrowing trillions to destroy what is essentially the most financially stable program in the entire federal government seems stupid and dangerous.

In arguing for the same solution proposed by my brother, some variation of extended the Social Security tax beyond it's current salary cap, Kevin Drum laments what a difficult line of attack it would be:

Suppose you accept the pessimistic assumptions of the Social Security trustees. Suppose their economic and demographic predictions are correct. What does it mean?

It means that the total cost of Social Security will rise from about 4.5% of GDP to about 6.5% of GDP over the course of the next several decades. In other words, even if all the gloomy scenarios are correct, here's what it would take to keep Social Security benefits the same as they are today: an increase in taxes equal to about two points of GDP over the course of 30 or 40 years.

That's nothing. And yet we've somehow come to live in a bizarro world in which a tax increase of two points of GDP over four decades is so unthinkable that of course we need to cut benefits. This despite the fact that Social Security benefits for low and middle income workers average about 40% of their pre-retirement income, hardly a king's ransom.

How did we get to this point? How did we convince ourselves as a society that raising taxes by a small amount in order to keep Social Security benefits at a barely livable level is literally unthinkable?

I will answer Drum's question "how did we get to this point" in the extended entry. Returning to the main question of the various problems we will face as a party in the upcoming Social Security debate, I pose to MyDDers the following questions: do you find any of the above solutions adequate, and how else can we avoid being painted as anti-reform in the forthcoming Repug party attempt to destroy Social Security? We need to talk about this, because it is a serious problem.

Kevin Drum asks:

Here's the answer:

2 BILLION ASSETS CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS (200I ASSETS)

				  (in $ Millions)
The Bradley Foundation			584 
Smith Richardson Foundation			494 
Scaife Family (Four Foundations)		478.4
Earhart Foundation				84
John M. Olin Foundation 			71
Koch Family (Three Foundations) 		68
Castle Rock (Coors) Foundation		50
JM Foundation				25 
Philip M. McKenna Foundation		17.4

NATIONAL "THINK TANKS" (200I BUDGETS)

				    (in $ Millions)
The Heritage Foundation 			33
American Enterprise Institute		25
Hoover Institution				25
Cato Institute				17.6
Hudson Institute				 7.8
Manhattan Institute			 7.2 
Citizens for a Sound Economy		 5.4 
Reason Foundation				 4.9 
National Center for Policy Analysis		 4.7 
Competitive Enterprise Institute		 3.2 
Free Congress Foundation			 2.7 
Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis	 2.5 

MASS MEDIA DISTRIBUTION

$300M CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE MACHINE

TELEVISION
Pat Robertson's 700 Club
Fox News Channel
MSNBC's Scarborough Country 
Oliver North's War Stories 

RADIO
The Rush Limbaugh Show 
The Cal Thomas Commentary 
Radio America 

PUBLISHING 
Eagle Publishing, Inc. 
NEWSPAPERS
The Washington Times 
The Wall Street journal 

WEBSITES 
Townhall.com 
AnnCoulter.com 

STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS (200I ESTIMATES)

				(in $ Millions)
George Mason University 			7 
Harvard University				6 
Intercollegiate Studies Institute		5.8 
University of Chicago			5 
Yale University 				5 
Washington University			4 
Stanford University			3 
Institute for Humane Studies		2.9 
National Association of Scholars		1.2

If you never read The Republican Noise Machine, read the entire article for a primer.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 71 Comments :: Post a Comment

Contest Reform as well (3.00 / 1)

Conservatives achieved their comeback since 1964 in part by vilifying the changes that Democrats were pushing. Indeed they accomplished a lot this election by pushing the idea that we stood for changes that the country did not want to make. Being identified with change is not always a benefit in American politics. We should be able to craft a message around the idea that not all 'reforms' are a good idea. As you said, Bush's SS plan is to destroy one of the most successful, popular and beneficial programs of the US government. While I have no specific suggestion for how to craft the message we ought to be able to portray this as a bad change.

by 8051FSW on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:05:01 PM EST

Re: Contest Reform as well (none / 0)

Yes. Don't forget that the GOP was "anti-reform" with respect to health care in 1993-4. That position didn't seem to hurt them any.

However, almost any program could use some improvement, and Social Security is no exception.

If the trustees' assumptions were correct, Social Security could still be fully funded by eliminating the $85K cap on taxable income, and by bringing many currently-exempt workers into the program. There is no need to cut benefits or raise the retirement age for anyone.

The trustees' assumptions are overly pessimistic, however. Thus, if we implement the above changes, we will actually have more money coming into SS than it needs. Nevertheless, the above proposals seem sensible on the grounds of fairness alone.

Therefore, I propose making the above changes (eliminating the income cap and bringing in exempt workers), but offsetting the extra income with a tax cut, in the form of an income "floor." Any income up to the floor would be untaxed, although it would still be counted when calculating benefits.

The floor would be equal to the amount a full-time worker would earn at the Federal minimum wage, currently $10,712.

Furthermore, since this would be a tax cut of $664.14 for each employee and for his/her employer, I propose immediately raising the minimum wage by 30 cents/hour to compensate. (The minimum wage needs to be increased by much more than that, but that small increase would be revenue-neutral for the employers, so no one should object.)

This plan would put more money into Social Security, give everyone except very high-income earners a tax cut, and give low-wage earners a small but much-needed boost in their income. It would let the Democrats reclaim the Social Security "reform" mantle and thereby address Chris's concerns.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reform is needed. (none / 0)

I lean towards agreeing with your brother. The Republicans could easily frame us as recalcitrant, anti-reform politicians who are afraid to make changes to the SS "crisis".

I believe it would be best to craft a "moderate" approach and label the Republican effort as an extreme, anti-elderly, pro-big business effort.

A "moderate" approach would include:

1) Incrementally increasing the age in which you receive the benefit (correlate it with increases in life expectancy. For instance, if life expectancy in of U.S. citizens increases by one year, then raise the SS threshold by one year.)

While some would undoubtedly call this racist, that counter-argument is moot because you could claim that the current age-limit is racist as well. (Many try to label the age threshold as racist because minorities have a lower life expectancy than Caucasians.)

Effect: Decreases the amount the Government has to pay out in benefits.

2) Fundamentally change how SS money is managed.

According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:

"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."

"In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted."

Source: David C. John

If the government keepts borrowing from the SS fund, and issues IOU's they know they can't pay back, the system will collapse faster than we think.

In short, we need to listen to what Al Gore said and place SS funds in a "lock box".

Conclusion: Both these points require no tax hikes, require no private accounts, and will vastly increase the available funds for those who begin to receive a benefit.

Also, it does not increase the burden on higher-income individuals. Once of the reasons Social Security is politically acceptable is that it pays you what you paid into it. So if you make a high-income and pay accordingly into SS, you can a higher-paying check when receive your benefit compared to other folks.

This is what is required to continue to make SS a politically acceptable system.

Side Note: I had the pleasure of taking a class with Fmr. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala (who is also president of my undergraduate institution.) She firmly believes that change is necessary. While she does not support privatization, she does support the changes I list above.

Secretary Shalala believes that personal retirement accounts will kill social security altogether. She believes that the poorest individuals WILL NOT take advantage of personal retirement accounts because they need the money in present time. So, in essence, these folks will be left out in the cold when they retire.

I believe she is right.

by kitsae on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:13:18 PM EST

Re: Reform is needed. (none / 0)

Your post shows just how poorly Social Security has been framed, by Democrats as well as Republicans. At least the Republicans have the excuse of not liking the program, so it makes sense that they would frame it incorrectly. What's our excuse?

With proposal #1, you've fallen into the trap of believing a Rethug talking point.

If we index the retirement age to "life expectancy" (which usually means life expectancy at birth), than every decrease in infant mortality will raise the retirement age! This obviously makes no sense, since infants who don't die will become workers who pay into the system before they become retirees and therefore place no additional "strain" on the system.

Despite popular belief, however, life expectancy at age 65 has increased by only three years since Social Security was enacted. Meanwhile, the retirement age has been increased by two years. Hard to see a need for much further change there.

Proposal #2 - the "lockbox" metaphor - is just that: a metaphor. I certainly agree that we need to get control of our deficit, and even pay down our national debt considerably. But there's no meaningful way of placing the Social Security Trust Fund in a "lockbox;" it has to be invested in something. And even if it were invested in gold held at Fort Knox, there'd be no way to guarantee its worth decades from now.

It's also important to note that the quote from Clinton's OMB was pure political propaganda, which is, by the way, largely responsible for the Democrats' current dilemma. According to their logic, no bond is a "real economic asset;" bonds are "merely claims" on the corporation or government that issued them. Yes, and - short of bankruptcy - it's a claim that will be honored the world over. No one wants to ruin their credit rating. The OMB was trying to create a false distinction between Treasury bonds held by SS and Treasury and other bonds held by everyone else, but there is no such distinction. Any bond, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising income, reducing outlays, or new borrowing, whether the redeemer is the U.S. Government or a private corporation, and whether the redeemee is Social Security or a private investor.

It's simply disingenuous to argue that the Government is issuing "IOU's they know they can't pay back." You are implying the government has intended to default on these bonds since day one, which is complete and utter nonsense. Do you have any idea what would happen to world financial markets if the U.S. Government began to default on its bond obligations? Let's just say that if that happens, Social Security will be the least of our worries.

It's true that the income cap is also a benefits cap, so as a practical matter, if we eliminate the income cap we would also have to provide some corresponding benefit. But the benefit doesn't have to match the income! Social Security has always had a progressive benefit structure and can continue to do so. We don't need to allow for million-dollar Social Security checks to Bill Gates or Ross Perot just to eliminate the income cap.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Honesty about Social Security (3.00 / 1)

We need to be honest about Social Security.

The system isn't supposed to be your retirement. It's supposed to make sure that in the worst case scenario the elderly don't have to eat dog food.

We need to understand though that there are people worried about their retirement. It's hard to put aside money and save up enough for your golden years. We need to help expand that opportunity to all people.

Gephardt was talking about universal pensions during the primary, and even the DLC has their proposal on the subject (http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250238&kaid=85&subid=108)

Why aren't more Democrats focusing on this?

by LoganFerree on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:16:26 PM EST

Re: Honesty about Social Security (none / 0)

Few people dispute that will need to reform Social Security, maybe not right now but very soon.

Those that propose the 'investment accounts' or other privitization methods are many of the same people who have spearheaded the gradual corporate change from defined-benefit retirement plans to contributor-benefit retirement plans. In a nutshell, the biggest change that any privitization plan does to Social Security is shift some of the burden of paying out from the government (which currently is 100%) to the recipient. In corporate life, it used to be the case that you went to work for a company and stayed for a number of years, 25-30-40 whatever and once you reached a predetermined age or point you started receiving a monthly benefit that was fixed. Hence the term defined-benefit. You did nothing more other than worked at the company for a period of time. These days, companies are moving away from such defined-benefit plans to contributor-managed plans such as IRAs, 401ks and other programs where the company may put in money but a substantial portion of the money comes out of the employees paycheck, and the program funds are managed by the employee. While at first glance, this may seem like a good way to bring about greater employee involvement in their retirement funds and the potential for greater returns in the financial markets, rarely does it ever match the stability of the defined-benefit plan. As we saw with Enron, whole retirements can be wiped out by the unscrupulousness of others to no fault of the employee.

So we have a choice, we can retain the current 'defined-benefit' structure and make the necessary changes to ensure its solvency, whether by expanding the taxation level from $85,000, increasing payroll taxes, adjusting the benefit levels/ages, or we go to a cash-and-carry style Social Security like a 401k. The problem with the latter approach is that A) It is redundant if a worker already participates in one; B) It breaks the spirit of why Social Security was enacted in the first place. Social Security was always a safety net for retirees whether they had a company-sponsored retirement plan or not. It is often a manageable risk for younger workers to invest in financial markets, because pre-retirement workers do not yet depend on the benefits of Social Security for daily living. However post-retirees do. Of course those that advocate privitization will argue that current retirees and those that are close to retiring will enjoy the benefits of the current system. The fallacy of that is two-fold; A) Eventually we will reach a point when the privitized employees will reach retirement age and it may create a whole new slew of financial problems and B) The whole reason we are talking about Social Security is because of the looming retirements of the Baby Boom Generation. If the Baby Boom Generation is allowed to collect on Social Security as it is defined now there is no point in reforming it for the succeeding generations. Current population trends indicate that the Generation X, Generation Y, and beyond generations will be stable populations making Social Security manageable as it is today.

The fact of the matter here is that conservatives', and Republicans' ideas on Social Security are nothing more than extensions of their 'survival of the fittest' mentality. Every Man For Himself might work in fun and games but not in government.

by southerndemnut on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honesty about Social Security (none / 0)

We should support something similar to the proposal by Rahm Emmanuel, I think, to separate the idea of private savings from SS shoring up. Have a universal 401(k) option not tied to employment that people can fund with pre-tax dollars and put in a small variety of mutual funds. Employers could add a match as part of a benefit package. The cap would be much higher than with 401(k)s today. It could even be managed by the SS administration with 5 pooled funds--a total bond dund, a gov't bond fund, a total stock market fund, an S&P 500 fund and a money fund. Simple, low overhean, would expand the savings rate rather than just move money around, and give an incentive for true private savings. This would position the Dems as the party of the future.

SS should be shored up solely with raising the cap to $150,000 in salary.

We need to make it clear that what the repubs are really tryign to do si get the gov't not to have to redeem the bonds that the SSA has been buying since the 1983 reforms. they are balking at redeeming US Treasury bonds. How will the financial markets like that?

by Mimikatz on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 05:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Honesty about Social Security (none / 0)

I agree.

Invoking the design of our fathers,
continually drives us to a libertarian
destiny.

Vermont, for example: instead of having
a powerful central government, they've
got powerful local governments.

In the case of SS, we don't have some kind
of broad, centralized investment scenario -
we need to have a decentralized, guaranteed
safety net that can catch people in the small towns as well as the cities.

Federalization of Social Security was done
in response to a great crisis.

Now, with industrialization of China -
you've got another great crisis: no american
business can set up shop making +Anything+
and compete with chinese price.

keep taxes low, but spark the economic engine
and drive up revenue. Laffer curve.

fight the republicans idea to line the pockets
of investment bankers. bring out the real
story about how broker fees for these
"accounts" that are proposed will eat up
any and all benefit.

make it clear: America becomes stronger again,
not by giving away their past but aggressively
embracing it faster than the corporate republicans.

My view is that the party needs to move
not to the right, but to the people.

That of necessity means cutting itself
away from the media consultant class,
the labor lobbies, all the little pieces
of a life lived for the past thirty
years under the assumption that
the party can exist without the people.
Believe me, they think we're just
buckets of internet money whether its
rosenberg, dean, or madison ave.
all the same.

its up to us.
lets take it back to where it began.
only by having local industry will we have
local power. the chinese "centralized"
economy is just setting the built in corruption
of a confucian society into a well known
pattern. and thats whats driving their engine.

lets go back to go forward, not to obstruct
social security - but instead to pioneer a
new way of life without either th einvestment
bankers, or the labor lobby.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 08:20:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We provide positive alternatives (none / 0)

In my last diary on Social Security I included three alternatives to any plan Bush comes up with.

The first and most obvious is a Social Security Lock Box. This is an obvious reform that Bush has already pledged to implement in one of the Bush/Gore debates. The biggest advantage of this alternative is that there is no way Republicans could take this into a House/Senate negotiating committee and come out with a plan that does anything else.

The second alternative we should propose is aThrift Savings Plan in addition to Social Security. If Bush is seriously interested in increasing savings and providing a more secure retirement for all Americans, this is a much better alternative than extending his tax cuts.

There are problems with making this a nation wide plan, but I don't believe this would be any more expensive than extending Bush's tax cuts and paying $2 trillion for privatizing Social Security. Bush has given us a very large stack of money to play with in proposing alternatives.

The third alternative is the Diamond-Orszag Alternative from the Brookings Institute. The danger of this plan is that we would have no way of knowing what would come out of a House/Senate Republican negotiating committee and how many hours they would allow to read it before they required a vote.

One and two are no brainers that put the lie to Bush's crisis. They also challenge the fairness of extending his tax cuts. The TSP would put a stark choice in front of the American people. A retirement plan for the bottom 90% or a tax cut for the top 10%.

The Diamond-Orszag Alternative is a serious proposal that makes Social Security bullet proof even out to infinity and counting inflation. There is some risk to negotiating a substantive change like Diamond-Orszag because of the threat of bad faith by Bush and the Republicans. It would be much better to save this choice until we have a Democratic President of at least one house of Congress.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:27:31 PM EST

Re: We provide positive alternatives (none / 0)

The first and most obvious is a Social Security Lock Box. This is an obvious reform that Bush has already pledged to implement in one of the Bush/Gore debates. The biggest advantage of this alternative is that there is no way Republicans could take this into a House/Senate negotiating committee and come out with a plan that does anything else.

Sigh. The "Lock Box" is a metaphor, not a reform proposal! What could it possibly mean? Invest the entire Trust Fund in gold, cash, or other "hard" assets in a basement in Fort Knox, where they'll earn no interest whatsoever? That's not reform; that's a joke.

No, the Trust Fund has to be invested in something that either bears interest, like bonds, or appreciates in value, like stock. Any such investment is a risk! The current investment vehicle - U.S. Treasury securities - is one of the least risky investments (GOP propaganda notwithstanding), but diversification is nevertheless a reasonable proposal to consider.

We could propose a diversification bill, and call it a "Lock Box" bill, but simply repeating, "we need a lock box" without attaching it to some concrete reform proposal is as meaningless and cynical as saying "we need a Patriot Act!" We all know what we ended up with when that happened.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obstructionists (3.00 / 1)

The reason we are labeled obstructionists is because we don't oppose, we just try to stop the GOP agenda. A real opposing party provides clear contrasts between it and the majority party. Just saying "Bush's reformation of social security is bad" is not enough to provide any type of contrast between them and us. Therefore we are seen as nothing more than obstructionists and nay sayers.

What we need is a clear proposal that contrasts our democratic values with their GOP "values". Bush wants people to be able to invest in private accounts, well then let's propose something that is all about private accounts AND maintaining the benefits promised to workers.

Let's provide something that shows a promise is a promise, and that a lockbox is a lockbox. They are the party that wants to cut your benefits to give them to their big business friends. We want to help those who play by the rules and work hard to build a nest egg so every American can have a better retirement. Contrast. Contrast. Contrast.

Hell, why aren't Democratic leaders just calling this what it is: The GOP wants to repeal the New Deal. Democrats put that in place and we want to make it work better. The GOP proposal will kill the New Deal. The Democratic proposal will strengthen it.

Contrast. Opposition not obstruction. I'm just some schmoe in the suburbs and I can figure this out. Why can't our leaders?

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:30:01 PM EST

Additional thought (none / 0)

The proposals I mentioned need not ever have a chance of passing. We are the minority. There is no chance of them passing. If you believe in bi-partisanship with this administration you are kidding yourself.

The idea is not to propose solutions in hopes of changing the GOP proposal. The idea is to propose alternatives to spark debate, and undermine support for the GOP proposals. The secondary idea is to define who we are and what we stand for. This will then be used in the next election cycle as such by providing examples of GOP efforts to cut benefits and give the profits to the big business fat cats.

Create enough debate and enough contrast such as this and the GOP proposal to repeal another part of the New Deal becomes too politically hot to touch. If they vote for it, they pay for that vote next election.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Additional thought (none / 0)

I agree - screw bi-partisanship. Contrast and oppose... be a true 'loyal opposition'... not loyal to the administraion, but loyal to our convictions, our constituency and the constitution.

And don't be afraid to take matters to the street... if they really ram these issues through congress, we ram those issues back up their backsides in the street. Non-violent doesn't mean non-assertive.

It is ugly dirty business being an opposition party... Dems better learn and learn fast.

by dryfly on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Start Insisting on a Balanced Budget (3.00 / 2)

What Dems need to do is continuously stress how out of balance the budget is and stress that any government program has to be looked at in terms of a balanced budget. Dems should also start supporting the idea of a balanced budget amendment because Bush's tax ideas and his social security plans can't pass muster IF they are analyzed in terms of what they do to a balanced budget.

Dems should start introducing bills in Congress that call for a balanced budget NOW, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, but NOW. They should point out that all it takes to balance a budget is political will and obviously the Republicans don't have it, but we do.

Insisting on a balanced budget is good politics and makes sense morally because we are not passing on to future generations our messes.

by mrgavel on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:37:35 PM EST

You need to hang out at MaxSpeak.com more. (none / 0)

An inflexible "balanced budget" is a bad idea. A much better proposal is to cap the debt ceiling at, say, 40% of annual GDP.

We're over that now, so it'd take a balanced budget, and actually a surplus, to get down to that target. But once we reached it, we'd have the flexibility to deal with recessions and national emergencies like 9/11 that a hard-and-fast balanced budget wouldn't give us. That's because the economy grows every year, giving us a little more room for sustainable debt.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You need to hang out at MaxSpeak.com more. (none / 0)

In 2003 there was an article published by a group of Sanford professors. They examined psychological studies conducted of conservative voters over the last 50 years. These studies were conducted in both Europe and America. The article concluded that conservatives are motivated by several factors. These include:

An intolerance for ambiguity;
A tolerance for inequality;
A need for cognitive closure;and
Motivation based on terror and fear.

If you start from the premise that America is a conservative country, then you can see why Bush got more votes. His appeal was ideally suited to appeal to conservative leaning voters, if you use the above model.

The reason why I like the idea of a balanced budget is that it is not ambiguous, and gives cognitive closure to the issue of social security "reform", tax "relief", and other conservative framing of public issues.

It is designed to appeal to conservative leaning voters. Here is the argument: Bush's plan for social security is bad because it increases the deficit. Bush's plan for permanent tax cuts is bad because it increases the deficit. Note that each one of those positions is not ambiguous, can be explained in one sentence, and gives closure to the argument.

by mrgavel on Sat Jan 15, 2005 at 02:53:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You need to hang out at MaxSpeak.com more. (none / 0)

Actually what I should have said is motivation based on managing terror and fear. The article is called Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition by
John T. Jost
Stanford University
Jack Glaser
University of California, Berkeley
Arie W. Kruglanski
University of Maryland at College Park
Frank J. Sulloway
University of California, Berkeley

If you stop and think about it, this helps explains why Bush is so popular among conservative leaning voters. Take Iraq, for example:

He defines the problem as being avoiding future attacks on America, (this plays into fear), his solution is that we should "fight them over there before we have to fight them over here", (this is a very unambiguous approach and has the benefit of not leading to fighting in America), and once you adopt his solution there is no need for any more discussion, (cognitive closure, ie, he has identified the problem, offered a solution, and now there is no need to reexamine the solution).

He is doing the same thing with social security "reform": Social security is going "bankrupt", (arousing fear that Americans will not have enough money for their old age), solution: allow people to keep their own money, (note that it is a very unambiguous solution, ie, easy to understand, and superficially very appealing, who can be against allowing people to keep their own money?), and gives cognitive closure, (no more problem, fear of not enough money in old age is solved because Americans will keep more of their own money and thus have enough to live on.)

Now, we can continue to say that his analysis is wrong, won't work, etc., or we can develop ways of framing these issues that have traction among conservative leaning voters.

by mrgavel on Sat Jan 15, 2005 at 04:16:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I like the "wrong crisis" line of attack (3.00 / 1)

I think we should keep hammering this one using the past as prologue:

We attacked Iraq when Al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea were the REAL threats to our security.

Now Bush wants to attack Social Security (a program currently running a surplus that, left as is, will remain solvent for many decades) when the REAL threats to our financial security are Bush's own fiscally irresponsible budgets and Medicare -- the potential insolvency of which was made MUCH worse by Bush's giveaway to Big Pharma masquerading as a Prescription Drug benefit.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:41:38 PM EST

A Radical Idea (3.00 / 1)

Well, actually, it's not a radical idea - but it might take some effort to fight the perception that it is: Why not do away with the notion that Social Security has to be self-funded? This is a concept that has long-outlived its original usefulness. No other governmental program is capable of going bankrupt or running out of money. Hell, the government as a whole can't cover its own expenses - so why should Social Security, one of its most important programs, be subject to a double standard?

In proposing that we merge Social Security into the general budget, we need to explain to people that the social security trust fund is not "protecting" social security, but strangling it. We need to explain that the social security "crisis" would not be a crisis at all if we would simply acknowledge that society's obligation to its senior citizens is paramount - and needs to be honored whether or not payroll tax revenues exceed social security distributions. We've been blurring the lines between the social security trust fund and the general fund for years - by borrowing social security's surplus in order to cover general budget deficits - so why should social security be told its on its own as soon as it begins to run deficits of its own?

While we're at it, the next logical step is to eliminate the payroll tax and increase the income tax in order to make the proposal revenue-neutral. Why should the burden of caring for society's elderly be placed solely on the shoulders of those who work for a living? Why shouldn't we all share in the obligation? Social security is not a "saving" program, it's an "insurance" program, designed to share the "risk" of becoming elderly or disabled.

Ironically, I'm sure that Republicans will try to portray this approach as "risky" and as "jeopardizing" the continued existence of social security (by characterizing general budget programs as being non-guaranteed and as being capable of being cut or eliminated at any time). To this, I say - fine, let 'em try. They've already let the "guaranteed" cat out of the bag - by repeating their contention that social security goes away as soon as the trust fund runs out of money. They've already acknowledged that the trust fund won't protect social security. We can counter by proposing legislation that would guarantee the continued funding of social security - out of general revenues - and would require a substantial hurdle (maybe supermajority, 75% of both houses of congress) in order to modify it. (Though not terribly wise from a policy standpoint, but because it would never pass - we could take a page out of the Republican playbook and propose a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the continued funding of social security.)

I agree that we need to stop being on the defensive here. Since the Republicans are insistent on forcing the issue, let's begin by being forcing them to be honest about why they contend there is a problem: Because they don't value the commitment to seniors enough to ensure that social security will be paid under all circumstances.

by CMochster on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:48:25 PM EST

Great "Outside the Box" Thinking! (none / 0)

This is how most European democracies handle their social insurance programs (which is what Social Security is): they pay for it out of their general funds, rather than out of a separate "trust fund."

It has the advantage of making tax policy a whole lot more sensible, too. Rather than our screwy system, where tax rates go sharply up when you hit the 25% bracket, then sharply down again when you hit the SS income cap, then up again as you hit higher tax brackets, tax rates simply rise smoothly with income, and the lowest-income earners aren't taxed at all!

Not to mention, it does away with all the misleading and confusing rhetoric about "lock boxes" and such.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Quick thought (none / 0)

Framing Social Security is quite the dilemna. Matched against the "noise machine" about to be unleashed on America, we have a Sysyphus task ahead.
I am no Economist, and of a mood to rarely compromise, but like a wrestler pinned, I look to use my adversary's position. What if.....
Instead of allowing the SS contributors to invest in the Stock Market, we were to propose allowing them the option of diverting some monies into Goverment Bonds. This to me, would ease the Governmental economic strain, and give contributors a safer means of supplementing their Benefits..ala Savings Bonds.

by meagert on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:50:08 PM EST

Nice idea, but... (none / 0)

... no banana. That's essentially how Social Security works now!

Well, not exactly. Your idea would transfer some of the volatility from the Guvmint to the individual. Guvmint bonds are low-risk, but they still show a bit of volatility, which means your retirement nestegg would depend on where the bond markets are when you retire. You might do a little better, or a little worse, depending on nothing more than when you were born (and totally unpredictable beforehand).

It also increases SSA's administrative overhead, but at least it avoids the "transition costs" of the GOP schemes, since the government will still be getting your money. It just has to set aside the appropriate number of bonds for when you die or reach retirement.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Social Security Tax Reform (3.00 / 1)

A reform policy that I have advocated on another progressive site is to lift the cap on social security taxes and then use the excess money that comes in to lower the social security tax rate on everyone else. I think the current rate is something like 6.2%. If people making over $90k, or whatever the cut off is now, had to pay the same rate as everyone else, I think you could lower the rate to like 3.5% and still increase revenue.

Note the policy advantages of this approach:

Currently, the social security tax structure inhibits giving a raise to anyone making anyone under the cut-off because the employer has to match the social security tax paid by the employee and this amount grows if the employee gets a raise. But if the employee is already making over the cap, then the employer doesnt have to pay any additional payroll tax for the employee after a raise. Hence, raises go to higher paid employees.
The social security tax acts as a disincentive to hire anyone because, as I said above, the employer has to match the employee's payroll reduction. If the rate is reduced to 3.5%, then the employer has less of a disincentive to hire new employees.
This tax change would put more money into the hands of consumers, thus helping the economy.

Aside from this change, I like the ideas expressed by jollybudda.

Finally, to be a "reform" party does not mean that we want to change everything.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:52:07 PM EST

The only problem with removing the cutoff... (none / 0)

...is that it doesn't really fix anything, because the size of your monthly check from the SS is tied to how much you put into the system; that is, if you remove the cutoff, then people who make more than 82 grand or whatever will just get more benefits (you could not give them more money, but...).

The other problem here is that the system really isn't in trouble. It's like Peak Oil-everybody has been crying wolf for decades, but doomsday never actually happens.

by Geotpf on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 04:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reform with a Twist (none / 0)

First, I want to recommend the following books for excellent overviews of the topic.
Running on Empty by Peter G. Peterson (warning Peterson is a Republican but the analysis is critical of both parties)
The Coming Generational Storm by Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns
and the chapter "How We Are Aging" from Who We Are Now by Sam Roberts

IMO, two distinct problems appear. The first is that the surpluses produced by the Social Security trust fund have been transformed into the form of government bonds. So when the government begins to cash in those bonds to pay for Social Security benefits, the total spending (and presumably borrowing) by the government rises. So, yes, Social Security is funded for decades, but will the government be able to pay the promised benefits without economic harm, such as higher interest rates and/or inflation?

The second is the demographic problem, that there will be approximately two workers paying into Social Security per Social Security recipient. There are four forms of pain to fix the system, raising Social Security taxes, increasing the retirement age, increasing the taxes on Social Security benefits paid, and decreasing the benefits paid by Social Security.

The great irony in all of this is that the Medicare crisis is much greater and has been worsened by recent changes in Medicare achieved by the Bush administration.

Answer? I prefer to spread the pain, making incremental changes in all four areas cited above. I would even come out in favor of private accounts if they were in the form of additional payroll taxes. Some sort of financial safety net for retired people is still necessary but many retired people are comfortable financially and the changes in Social Security should reflect this reality. (See the Coming Generational Storm for more details.)

Politically, for younger voters, I wouldn't defend the status quo for Social Security. Polling suggests that younger workers don't expect to receive their full benefits as currently promised. The allure of private accounts is very strong because it suggests that each individual will receive back the taxes they have paid. Personally speaking, I'd like a private account.

So my political proposal would be to increase Social Security payroll taxes by 2%, take the money and set up private accounts for each and every one of us. An alternative would be to phase this in over time, perhaps a quarter of one percentage point per year.

I'm not an economist, I haven't run the numbers. But the approach is private accounts yes, fiscal responsibility yes.

by Melinda on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:08:19 PM EST

Re: Reform with a Twist (none / 0)

But we already have private accounts -- they're called IRAs and 401Ks.

We need to combat the "what's in it for me?" mentality that is at the heart of the whole social security privatization debate. Payroll taxes are no different from income taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc. - not every dollar that you pay in needs to be set aside for your personal benefit at some point in the future. The point of taxation is to raise funds that will (ideally) be expended in a manner that benefits society as a whole.

by CMochster on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reform with a Twist (none / 0)

O.K. you live to 85 and your private account runs out. What then? If you live to 125, you'll get a SS check every month. Looking at it from the other end, if you are disabled at 45 before your private account builds equity, SS will be there for you.

It's not called a guarantee between the generations for nothing. Young people should think of SS as a contract between generations.

Truth is, SS will be there for young people. Bush and his crowd are creating this crisis for cover as they take another whack at liberalism. There are several ways to fix SS without private accounts. You mentioned some yourself, Melinda.

by Norcal Lib on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

great entry chris (none / 0)

I like the way you analyze their arguments and pick out the ones we really need to worry about.

I think we need to look at what we want in social security, if we were philosopher kings.

Two reforms I would do, both would be progressive:

remove the 85,000 cap. This is regressive, and would help meet some of the evental shortfall.
Scale back benefits the more money you at retirement. If you have $1,000,000 to live off of at age 65 and a pension on top of that, you should be ineligble for social security. The more pension you have coming, the less SS you need.
Government coverage for prescription drugs, not exactly SS, but this is a major toll on many people's SS checks. We could argue for 10% co-pay, instead of Bush's 10% discount.

I think we can do 1 & 3 for sure. Some republicans are supporting eliminating the cap. #3 relaly makes republicans seem like the heartless bastards they are. #2 would help make SS good for longer.

by srolle on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:18:39 PM EST

i cant count, three reforms.... (none / 0)

n/t

by srolle on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:19:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great entry chris (none / 0)

#2 won't work. THose who have the ample savings you suggest would be up in arms for having to pay for other people's retirement.

One of the major reasons SS was enacted in the first place is because everyone, every single person, who pays in the system is cut a check.

By being so equal, it was hard to argue against it.

by kitsae on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great entry chris (none / 0)

True. Means testing, even if reasonable at first, will eventually undermine support for the whole system. The political temptation will be to lower the threshold further and further, until too few people benefit. Then the GOP can abolish SS like they've wanted to all along, and get away with it.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 05:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great entry chris (none / 0)

I agree with these three suggestions, but 10% is still too much with many drugs for people with fixed incomes. look at it this way, suppose somebody takes three or four drugs, the 'real' cost of one is $250/month, another is $300/month, another is $60 month (its generic) and another is $45/month (also generic)

That would mean that they still had to pay $65

If you are on a fixed income, that is still too much. You don't seem to realize this, but, after rent, food, etc. many people have maybe $50-60 left, if they are lucky..

Seriously...

If something unexpected comes up, they are in serious trouble...

THATS WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE POOR....

Almost all of these people have worked their whole lives... They are not lazy.. They just didn't have the benefot of a college education, etc.

They had shit jobs and lots of stress, for years, and (often) they have health issues because of it...

For example, say somebody was a maid.. All those YEARS of scrubbing things on your hands and knees takes a serious toll on your joints..

Get it?

by ultraworld on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great entry chris (none / 0)

chill out......

you're just agreeing with me that there needs to be more drug coverage than present. the hypothetical world you construct seems silly when you use it to "prove" things. I'm not old, and I don't know precisely how much drug coverage is needed...from your tone, it doesn't seem like you know either.

why don't you find someone who actually disagrees with you, and then flame that person? no need to start a circular firing squad... especially since you are just forcefully agreeing with me.

get it?

by srolle on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As long as we're dreaming.... (none / 0)

... why not ask for 100% coverage instead of 90%? And throw in all other medical expenses, while we're at it.

Way too expensive? Maybe, if we wait until 65 to start coverage. But if we covered everyone, spreading the risk over the whole citizenry, it'd actually be more affordable than our current system of private health insurance + Medicare/Medicaid.

Democrats used to stand for such a thing. They still should.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 05:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Best mantra: Mend it don't end it (none / 0)

Social Security should not be radically dismantled like the Bush plans appears to want to do.

by wdmosely on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:39:05 PM EST

Re: Best mantra: Mend it don't end it (none / 0)

That's a good soundbite, but it feeds the perception that Social Security is in trouble to begin with. It isn't.

Even the trustees say it's sound until 2042, and that's with pessimistic assumptions about economic growth (which explains why each new trustee report has the day of reckoning further in the future than the last one). The CBO, using more reasonable but still conservative assumptions, says it's OK until 2052.

It's actually quite reasonable to propose doing nothing whatsoever for the next decade, then taking another look. And if "doomsday" is still 40-50 years in the future at that time, wait another decade, etc.

None of us have any problem with reforms which improve the system, and there have been some great proposals in this thread. But there's no reason to buy into the GOP's lies just because we have some reform ideas of our own.

The "crisis" meme is a lie. Don't feed it.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 05:18:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reframe instead of Reform (3.00 / 0)

Ask a couple of questions:

When you get a cough does that mean you are dying?
When you car gets a flat does that mean it is totalled?

Social Security's problems are more akin to a cough or a flat tire than they are to cancer or a cracked manifold.

If you went to a doctor with a cough and he recommended chemotherapy, you'd consider him a quack.
If you went to an autodealer with a flat tire and they recommended replacing the engine, you'd consider them to be crooks.

Social Security is the most successful government program ever instituted and is as healthy today as it has ever been. Those who are pushing the idea that it isn't are quacks and crooks.

by Chris Andersen on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:40:32 PM EST

Re: Reframe instead of Reform (none / 0)

I like this. Actually the situation is even less dire than a cough or a flat tire.

The GOP would probably use the analogy of a twentysomething who's living on a high-cholesterol diet. They might be perfectly healthy now, but if they don't change their lifestyle, they're likely to have serious health problems in forty years or so.

But in fact, the situation is more like a twentysomething with a decent diet. Sure, in 40-50 years, they may start having health problems, due to age alone. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with their lifestyle now!

Or, it's like having a car with tires! Eventually, one of them will probably go flat. That doesn't mean you even need to replace the tires yet, but the GOP is trying to tell us we need to replace the car!

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 05:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brooks on the Newshour (none / 0)

Friday said Bush/Rove SS scheme was "floundering." Unless Brooks is being disengeuous, that suggests our strategy is working. Which is to say, the SS solvency crisis is fiction.

I think we keep saying that, and press Democratic representatives to unite against private accounts and the eventual dismantling of SS. (See if your rep is a member of the faint-hearted faction at TPM)

That said, Chris' brother is right. We can't pretend changes won't have to be made. We have to make sure people understand Clinton left office with a big surplus that could have bought back much of the paper stuffed in the lockbox by the Republicans. This can come later in the debate.

If the left hammers away hard enough,long enough and loud enough, the scheme might lose traction and sink altogether.

I'm not that concerned with obstructionist labels. The plan is crap, and it is cover for an assault on what they hate the most - the liberal America of the past 75 years.

by Norcal Lib on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:50:36 PM EST

What am I missing ?? (3.00 / 1)

Ok,

Now I am not expert on this subject, but my reading of many articles this is what I think I know :

The "crisis" is not really a crisis.
As new estimates of the financial state of SS come out, the "crisis" date keeps being pushed further and further back, thus indicating that some of the estimates may have been overly conservative or we are outperforming revenue estimates for SS.
The shortfall that will occur in the future will not force the system to collapse, but it will put SS in a situation where more is going out then coming in for the year. At which point some sort of tinkering will need to be done to balance out the cash flow. (I am assuming any surpluses need to be burned through too....thus even if it were running with a negative cash flow, it can sustain the negative cash flow for a few years, which was the point of creating a surplus now, right???)

And that in a nutshell is what I undestand the SS crisis to be.

Now I wonder, what are the options to fix this problem???

Is it possible that after every estimate the "crisis" date keeps getting pushed back and thus we never really see a shortfall ? (except some type of projected one somewhere in the future)

If there really will be a shortfall would chaning the income level limit for the payroll tax alone fix the problem (say upping the limit from approx $85,000 to say....the first $150K or $200K ) ??
Would that really be considered a "tax increase" ? Since the tax rate wouldn't change, but it would include more high earners?

Is increasing the retirement age a popular idea? I have seen lots of people who seem to have no qualms with this. I personally don't like the idea because it seems unfair. The idea of forcing people to wait longer to retire because we can't afford to give you your promised benefits seems a little unfair to me.

Do benefits have to be cut? It seems already that SS benefits aren't that great. All of my elderly relative that are retired need to supplement their income (or have their children assist with things like rent and expenses) because they just can't make it on a SS check, and they lived check to check all their life so there is no "nest egg".
Cutting benefits to me seems like the neediest are getting the shaft?

Like I said, I'm no expert. But reading Krugman and like-minded economists, it seems like there is a lot of smoke and hype and very little substance to the "crisis". There is no real crisis, and any future shortfalls can be addressed by slightly increasing funding (where that funding comes from congress can debate)
or Am I missing something?

by avagias on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:03:22 PM EST

Re: What am I missing ?? (none / 0)

I think you've got it exactly right. Even in the worst possible case (the trustees' extremely pessimistic assumptions are borne out) raising the income ceiling, along with bringing in some state and local government employees who are currently exempt, would solve the problem.

I think what you're seeing is that even many Democrats have been fooled by the GOP Noise Machine (they've been screaming "crisis" since the '80's). Many have also internalized the "raising taxes is not an option" attitude of the GOP. So given those (false) constraints, raising the retirement age (again) seems like one of the least objectionable "solutions."

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 05:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I thought conservatism had been a huge winner. (3.00 / 1)

The Republican opposition to Hillary Clinton's health plan should be our game plan. The Republicans have successfully blocked every major Democratic platform of the last 10 years in the name of conservatism. I myself am a left-leaning Democrat, and there are many many things I want to see reformed in America, and the one thing I've learned is that it's very easy to paint any reform as radical, risky, misguided, idealistic, ideological, and outside the mainstream. Hillary Clinton knew this too--that's why she kept the details under wraps as long as she could, so that there was nothing specific to attack. But the Republicans rose to the challenge (plus, not keeping congressional democrats in the loop probably hurt her more than it helped, but that won't be a problem for Bush).

This is a golden opportunity. Not so many years ago, Democrats would have prayed for the Republicans to take on Social Security, to grab the third rail and publicly resolve to hold on. They're overreaching, and not only do we have an opportunity to stop the social security overhaul, but we have a chance to tarnish them entire party as being radical corporate toadies and free-market kiss-ups. Don't say Social Security is fine, say it's pretty good, just needs a few patches--just as Republicans did for health care. The conservative Democratic campaign should be: Social Security needs a band-aid, and Republicans want to take it out back and shoot it in the head. And then sell off the body-parts to Wall Street.

by brackdurf on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:05:11 PM EST

Re: I thought conservatism had been a huge winner. (none / 0)

What the Repubs did to HC's health plan was in the back of my mind as I wrote my earlier post.
I'm not above dusting off their blueprint and using it against them. Is there a detailed analysis somewhere of how a minority party derailed health care reform in the early 90's?

by Norcal Lib on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

trust fund (none / 0)

I think the correct point is that the only reason that social security needs help is BECAUSE the government has been raiding the trust fund.

After all, it doesn't matter if social security is solvent if the government is borrowing against the surplus and then spending it. If I have a big 401k and I borrow against it all and spend it on crap, I don't still have a good retirement to look forward to.

We agreed to regressive tax because the government made a promise to us that it would be to support our seniors. It doesn't. It goes to unjust wars and tax cuts for rich folks.

It's time for the rich folks to pay us back now because we've been financing their habits. Remove the upper limit on the SS contributions and make them pay their fair share.

by tunesmith on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:19:28 PM EST

Re: trust fund (none / 0)

If I have a big 401k and I borrow against it all and spend it on crap, I don't still have a good retirement to look forward to.

If you borrow against it, and you can and do pay it back, you haven't jeopardized your retirement at all. Many folks, myself included, have done this. The only way you can screw yourself is to borrow against it and then default on your loan.

You're right that Social Security's biggest problem is the government's fiscal irresponsibility under Bush's tax cuts and military spending. Fortunately, he hasn't pushed the government to the point of default yet, and I don't think his bidness buddies will let him even if he tries. They own Treasury bonds too, and they expect to get their money back.

Uncapping the SS tax is a good idea, though. After all, wouldn't that make the SS tax exactly what the Rethugs are always saying they want: a flat tax? How can they argue against that?

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eliminate the FICA cap! (3.00 / 2)

If the GOP gave tax cuts to the rich with our Social Security money, when they didn't really have a right to, its only fitting that the fix for Social Security should come from eliminating the FICA cap and allowing income above $88K/year to be taxed at the same rate as the rest of a person's income. This would only effect those who make more than 88K/year, and since they already pay Social Security taxes on the first 88K of their income, it would occur in a predictable way.. Most people would agree that the well-off have made off like bandits in the last two decades, while most Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or fall.

So it would only be right...

by ultraworld on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:36:46 PM EST

Soc. Sec. (none / 0)

I agree with the earlier suggestion of proposing a consitutional amendment to protect social security. It is a tough one--fight back and look obstructionist--give in and well, give in. It's not a better of hashing out the best deal as much as it's about getting the argument back and using it in '06.

If the issue is over social programs why not get universal health coverage into the debate. Demand that any reform on social security comes with a plan for Universal Health Care Coverage for Children. Mix that into the debate. That way we can look progressive, flexible and like a party that is finding creative ways to push an agenda.

by Welsh on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:37:44 PM EST

There is an old woman who lives down the street (none / 0)

from me who lives on Social Security.

I have spoken to her. From what i can see she lives on practically nothing...She just manages to pay for her rent with Social Security and maybe a few other necessities. If that.

Sometimes when I get up really early, I will see her going up and down the street before the garbage men come, going through trash cans, methodically, collecting tin cans to turn in for the deposit.

If you think that is a 'generous' benefit, I think you are NUTS.

You idiots are talking about cutting THAT? You can all just go to hell

You have a lot of nerve....

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

by ultraworld on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:43:18 PM EST

Old Woman.... (none / 0)

I am 10 years away from "retirement". The last report from Social Security said that I will be entitled to just a little over 800 a month, and I am one of the lucky ones...sheesh. Joshua Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo has summarized some good analysis, that he found at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. I'm not sure of the HTML yet on this site, so I will list the links, in case they don't appear properly. JM - http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_09.php#004373 CBPP - http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm

by meagert on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:03:14 PM EST

Re: Old Woman.... (3.00 / 1)

It seems that the situation you are in (as well as that of the old lady down the street from an earlier post) is not all that uncommon.

I have a grandmother (well she is more my grandfather's sister in law but anyway) she gets little more than 600 a month. She live alone. She never worked, but it's her deceased husband's SS benefit she is getting. Her son helps support her because her SS just barely covers her rent. Leaving less than 50 / month in for her montly expenses. If her son couldn't afford to help her? What would she do?

In any case, the "benefits" of SS aren't that great now. People like to talk about them as if they are some HUGE windfall that people get once they retire.
I don't like the idea of cutting benefits (or increasing retirement ages) at all. But it irks me to no end when people talk about benefit cuts or changing what it's tied to for cost of living increases as if there is no real world consequences other than some number on a budget report.

The message I am getting from all of this is that we don't care about seniors (or anyone who is in need). It's like we want to punish those who couldn't create a nest egg to supplement SS during retirement.

The richest country in the world and SS is where we are looking to cut costs? It's shameful.
Growing up I always believed that as time went on we would look at ways to increase the GUARANTEED BENEFITS of SS since so many people just BARELY get by on it. And now I hear people talking abotu how "benefit cuts" would be acceptable as a compromise.

Well its not acceptable to me. And it shouldn't be acceptable to anyone else. The people who these decisions are going to hurt are the people who need help and protection the most. And sadly, no one is really protecting them.

by avagias on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fiscal Responsibility vs.Colonial Pirates (none / 0)

The debate on Social Security needs to be framed based on those who favor fiscal responsibility vs the budget pirates who want to return to the every man for themselves colonial days. Social Security is the government program that is running a surplus and offsetting these huge federal deficits. Let's preserve this program and stop using this money to offset federal deficits. Yes we should propose some reforms which could include removing the cap on SS taxes or stop indexing based on income.

Let's make some minor reforms and preserve the most successful program in the history of the United States. A good way to look at financial security is to visualize a 3 legged stool. Your pension plan is one leg, Social Security is the second leg, and Personal Savings is the third leg. If you like what investing in the stock market has done for your pension look at the values in your 401K. Most of them are now 201K's. Most American's retirement stools have two legs that are wobbly, let's not let the budget pirates kick the last leg out from under our retirement plan.

The third and most important component of this discussion will be Iraq and the Middle East. Democrats should keep the debate focused on this issue and stay with the responsibility theme.
The U.S. must find a strategy to keep Iraq from falling into chaos and civil war after the elections. It is imperative to national security now and in the future. To cut taxes and raid social security, while there is an impending national security nightmare taking place is unprecedented and unpatriotic.

by ncpatriot04 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:32:00 PM EST

a bad thing? (none / 0)

...while Democrats are the party of security, limited choices, old programs and old people.

Those are the people that vote. We are well and strong with the young, Iraq will not change that for Bush. I am for stopping this head on with a clear reason why. Sure, it works fine, but why do we really want social security:Fineman, whom can be detestable, said it right:

Bush and Rove call their vision "the ownership society," and it is a shrewd slogan. It allows the GOP to identify with the "winners" in our win-at-all-costs society, and fosters the idea that anyone who opposes the White House opposes people "owning" their own lives. But Matsui would have argued--and presumably others will do so in his place--that we already live in an ownership society, and that one of the things we own, through Social Security, is a shared sense of responsibility.

The Democrats have to make it an issue of protecting social security from the wreckless irresponsibility of Bush.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:42:21 PM EST

A "Generational Alliance" (none / 0)

Theda Skocpol, in her book Missing Middle proposes a couple of extensions to the Social Security system that could make the system more relevant to working people today.

First, she proposes using the trust fund to finance improved education and training for current workers:

One way to turn Social Security into a "generational alliance," as economist Barry Bluestone has put it, involves using current surpluses to finance improved education and training for American workers, including parents who seek to improve skills while caring for children. Although the Social Security Trust Fund--the accounting of accumulated payroll taxes--will eventually have more charges against it than credits, it will remain in surplus for a couple more decades. In the meantime, the Trust Fund could finance GI Bill-style loans to post-high school students and working adults who need retraining to keep up with today's fast-shifting labor-market opportunities. The possibility of combining training with part-time parenting could be included in the loan program. As Bluestone has outlined in detail, training loans could boost the career prospects and incomes of many younger Americans, who could then repay the loans from their future earnings. Calibrated to each individual's wages over several decades following the use of the loan, the debts to the Social Security Trust Fund could be collected through automatic payroll deductions--just as Social Security taxes are--thus minimizing defaults. To create a win-win situation both for working-age adults and the nation's Social Security system, rates of repayment could be set to slightly more than replenish the funds (with interest) originally borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund.

All generations would gain under such a system. Younger adults would enhance their earning power. The nation would benefit at once from better-trained workers and parents in a stronger position to provide for children. And over time, the Social Security Trust Fund would grow, as loans are repaid and the national economy grows faster. . . .

If funds eventually needed for Social Security are used to boost the skills and earning power of younger families, this raises new revenues for the future and allows current payroll taxes to do "double duty," increasing the stake all Americans have in the shared system of social insurance.

Skocpol also proposes establishing extending the principle of social insurance to working single parents through a "Child Support Assurance" system that could become part of Social Security:

Some years ago, policy experts proposed a cogent extension of Social Security to make a big difference for single, working parents at all income levels. The United States could institute a national system of Child Support Assurance. Under this plan, either the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security system would automatically deduct a set percentage of the wages of an absent parent (a percentage calibrated to the number of children requiring support) and deliver most of the money on a predictable and dignified monthly basis to the custodial parent. Because this would be an automatic step, care-giving parents would not be forced to go again and again to court or to a private collection agency to update awards and actually collect them. And noncustodial parents would face a more predictable and equitable system. Under a system of Child Support Assurance, America would be saying to all parents: You must contribute to the support of your children, and both care-giving and wage earning count. In return for contributing time, energy, and love on a daily basis, the custodial parent would receive some extra income beyond what she (or he) earns in the marketplace.

In an effective Child Support Assurance system, the burden of collection must be on the national government, which can use the payroll tax system and readily track absent parents across state lines using their Social Security numbers. What is more, the ideal Child Support Assurance system should include a fixed minimum benefit, set at about the level of a half-time, minimum-wage job. Funded out of general federal revenues as well as with small payroll deductions collected from noncustodial parents, minimum payments would go to custodial parents in cases where the noncustodial parents cannot be found or earn insufficient income (for example, unemployed or imprisoned men). No care-giving parent could actually live on this minimum assured benefit; it would not be "welfare." But he or she could use the minimum benefit to enhance income from a job--or else to cut back a bit on working hours, in order to be at home with children at important times of the day, such as after school.

Child Support Assurance would make life more secure and dignified for millions of American families, and thus for all of us indirectly. Both middle-class and low-income single mothers would be huge winners, giving millions more nonelderly Americans a stronger stake in social insurance. Yet this addition to Social Security could be created with little additional cost to the public fisc. True, a fraction of federal revenues would be committed to fund the minimum benefit at a reasonable level. But most of the revenues for child-support payments would come from automatic payroll deductions collected from noncustodial parents. The nation would gain a great deal for many vulnerable families, at very little new cost.

Skocpol labels the philosophy behind such programs as a "family populism" that balances traditional liberal values of freedom and equality by enhancing economic security for everybody, and community by establishing rewards for the contributions workers make to the national welfare:

The policy specifics are less important than the principles: to look for ways to build cross-generational and cross-class alliances through shared, rather than fragmented, systems of social support for all working families; to provide new protections to citizens who are serving the nation as workers and parents; and to find ways to generate additional revenues through economic growth and returns on investments, even as new protections are extended to younger Americans.

by tgeraghty on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:42:23 PM EST

DAMMIT! (none / 0)

All anyone has to do is leave my frikkin' money alone! Stop the frikkin' madness. Stop the war! How many BILLIONS? Stop the Tax cuts for the rich! How many TRILLIONS? Keep them frikkin' republican Nazi Bastards away from my money! That protects everyone.
Godfrikkindamn them!
How's that for a Frame?

by meagert on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 09:29:01 PM EST

Summary unless there's more.... (none / 0)

Below all are your salient points in quick summary.
All are agreed, I think, the whole crisis is a sham.
Any changes to be proposed include minor adjustments.
Most of you are Democratic Socialists, by the way. Good for you! Needs of the Many, and all that.....

Chris, I believe you are right, in saying , "My counter-argument was that telling the truth, that Social Security is running a surplus and is fully funded for decades, is actually such a new argument in the minds of most people that we will sound like the ones with fresh ideas by defending Social Security." Up to this point....
"Also, I argued that if we claim that Social Security is fully funded and push for changes in the plan, then we will actually feed into the lies coming from conservatives about Social Security's "unfunded liability," and cement the need for destruction in the minds of more people."

The numbers agree with You, there is no need to out think ourselves.

Summary of your ideas:

if you never read The Republican Noise Machine, read the entire article for a primer.

Gephardt was talking about universal pensions during the primary, and even the DLC has their proposal on the subject

Dems should start introducing bills in Congress that call for a balanced budget NOW

Finally, to be a "reform" party does not mean that we want to change everything

Social Security is the most successful government program ever instituted and is as healthy today as it has ever been. Those who are pushing the idea that it isn't are quacks and crooks

Most people would agree that the well-off have made off like bandits in the last two decades, while most Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or fall.

So it would only be right...
In short, we need to listen to what Al Gore said and place SS funds in a "lock box".

It would be much better to save this choice until we have a Democratic President of at least one house of Congress.

The GOP wants to repeal the New Deal. Democrats put that in place and we want to make it work better. The GOP proposal will kill the New Deal. The Democratic proposal will strengthen it.

Because they don't value the commitment to seniors enough to ensure that social security will be paid under all circumstances.

Truth is, SS will be there for young people. Bush and his crowd are creating this crisis for cover as they take another whack at liberalism

3. Government coverage for prescription drugs, not exactly SS, but this is a major toll on many people's SS checks. We could argue for 10% co-pay, instead of Bush's 10% discount.

Like I said, I'm no expert. But reading Krugman and like-minded economists, it seems like there is a lot of smoke and hype and very little substance to the "crisis".

Social Security needs a band-aid, and Republicans want to take it out back and shoot it in the head. And then sell off the body-parts to Wall Street.

You idiots are talking about cutting THAT? You can all just go to hell

The people who these decisions are going to hurt are the people who need help and protection the most. And sadly, no one is really protecting them.

by meagert on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:06:03 PM EST

SS overhaul (none / 0)

The people who want to overhaul Social Security are the same people who took this county from a massive budget surplus to a massive deficit in just 4 years.

If they are incapable of sensible fiscal management in the short term, why would anyone trust their judgement long term?

by global yokel on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:19:27 PM EST

Social Insecurity (none / 0)

The Democrats might consider letting Barack Obama be their point man on Social Security. He can articulate our case beautifully, and his minority background would be a big plus in the battle. I'd love to see one of those beady-eyed, comb-over Republicans try to debate the issue with Obama.

by global yokel on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:27:25 PM EST

Dishonest Debate Reform (none / 0)

We need to do what Rove always does: change the subject to some peripherally related reform that advances our agenda. Example: when anyone asked the Bush campaign to ask SBVFT to take down their ads, they 1) refused and 2) quickly changed the subject to outlawing all 527s, which of course would benefit them greatly. And they did it every single time. Of course the compliant media picked up on this and started covering the topic--what are these 527s everyone's talking about? etc.--at the expense of covering the SBVFT lies. We need an issue like this, tenuously related to the Social Security debate, to which we can always, ALWAYS, change the subject.

One thought: we can 1) succinctly and sound-bitishly explain that SS is not really in crisis, and that the White House is misleading America about this, then 2) change the subject to something like "dishonest debate"--why is this administration always misleading Congress and America when it's pushing its major initiatives? We can point out how they sold the Medicare changes by lying to Congress about how much they would cost, and of course there's that itty bitty war they scammed us into, and now SS. We can even propose some high-road "Dishonest Debate Reform" which would impose high standards of honesty on how the executive