Mar 032010
 

Social Security is at risk, and we need to act to protect it.

elderly-poverty House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holds the fate of Social Security in her hands.

The Speaker must use her power to make three appointments to President Obama’s Deficit Commission to name lawmakers who will vote against raising the retirement age and re-computing the cost of living. If she doesn’t, President Obama’s Deficit Commission will recommend both of these things. The result will be reduced Social Security benefits for future retirees who will need every penny of retirement income they can get.

There’s no question that the President’s Commission has its sights aimed at Social Security. Alan Simpson, Obama’s Republican co-chair, famously trashed AARP for its advocacy for seniors and supported Social Security privatization. He lays the blame for the deficit on seniors: "How did we get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you’re ‘entitled’?"

The answer, of course, is that Americans earn those benefits after a lifetime of contributions. Since most of us will eventually grow old (if we’re not there already), this attempt to frame the issue in us-versus-them terms is puzzling. Simpson’s prejudices aside, seniors have much lower average incomes than working-age Americans, leaving most dependent on Social Security benefits that are less than what minimum-wage workers earn. That’s why polls show that most people — Republicans and Democrats — are happy to pay modestly higher payroll taxes to preserve Social Security benefits.

You would hardly think this was an option listening to Obama’s appointees. Alice Rivlin, a Democratic appointee, has already announced that her answer to the deficit includes raising the Social Security retirement age. This is a benefit cut, plain and simple. The two-year increase we’re going through right now reduces monthly benefits for a senior who retires at 65 by 13%, or $150. Raising the retirement age further, from 67 to 70, would reduce benefits by 30%, and the pain would be borne by younger workers, not today’s seniors – so we wouldn’t be doing our children or grandchildren any favors.

With fewer than half of workers on a path to a secure retirement, Social Security benefits are needed now more than ever. And despite alarmist attempts to portray Social Security as a system in crisis, there’s no reason its benefits shouldn’t be there for future generations. Social Security has a long-term shortfall equal to just 0.7% of GDP. To put this in perspective, this is only slightly more than the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of taxpayers. The system can be brought into long-term balance by modest revenue adjustments, without cutting critically-needed benefits.

The Deficit Commission was set up with rules requiring a vote by 14 of the 18 commissioners for any recommendation. Blocking cuts to Social Security thus requires five commissioners. It is fair to assume that every Republican will support such cuts, since opposition to "entitlements" is part of their party mantra (though it does not extend to entitlements that take the form of tax breaks like lower capital gains rates or mortgage interest deductions for second homes).

So where will five votes against Social Security cuts come from? One vote will be union leader Andy Stern’s. He has announced that his special role on the Commission will be to defend Social Security. Sen. Dick Durbin should be a vote against such cuts, since he is among a handful of truly progressive senators who understand how hard it is to survive – as one-third of retired Americans do – with no income beyond Social Security.

Sen. Max Baucus is a wild card. He opposed the Conrad-Gregg deficit commission bill because, he said, it put a big target on the back of Social Security. But to say that Baucus is not reliably progressive is to state the obvious. He has made deals to help pass the Bush tax cuts for the rich, to kill the public option in the health care bill, and to enact a series of business tax cuts in the Bush and Obama stimulus bills that have left progressives groaning.

That leaves Speaker Pelosi’s three appointments. If even one of her appointees is not unshakably opposed to Social Security benefit cuts, it could be disastrous. If two of Pelosi’s appointees are not iron-clad opponents of raising the retirement age, the Commission will recommend it, Congress will take it up swiftly after the November election, and the right wing will have won another victory, cutting another big hole in the safety net… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Please call Nancy Pelosi’s office and tell them that ALL of her appointments to the Deficit Commission must be staunch supporters of Social Security who oppose raising the age requirement and cutting the benefits.  Tell them that the way to manage Social Security is to raise the cap, so the rich will pay their fare share.  Tell them that, through the years of “trickle down” economics, nothing trickled down.  It all gushed up.  Tell them to balance the budget by cutting welfare for the rich, not by stealing people’s hard earned benefits.

Pelosi’s telephone number is (202) 225-0100.  Or you can contact her through a web form by clicking here.

Please spread this far and wide.  It is too important to ignore.

Share

  10 Responses to “Action Alert: Save Social Security”

  1. Odd isn’t it how “Retirement Savings Accounts” (partial privatization of SS) worked out in this downturn. How many billions did the banks holding those deposit convert from the savers money to the institutions? Hows that Republican hopey changey thing from the Bush debacle working out for ya now?

  2. The “problem” with SS benefits could be simply solved by eliminating the limit of $90K in income – why should people who may $250K stop paying SS taxes at $90K? SS would then have more money than they knew what to do with.

  3. Done.

  4. Well Mark, if it did anything other than transform people’s nest eggs to bankster bonuses, the GOP would be against it.

    Right Lisa. That’s what I meant by raise the cap. Thanks.

  5. It comes down to what I’ve said about our lawmakers all along TomCat. They have no balls. Taxes need to be raised but God forbid the lawmakers say so. They appoint a commission to do the dirty work.

    Since Nixon’s time in my recollection, the SS trust fund has been used to fund other government programs instead of asking the public for more taxes to pay for them. Now they want to punish all of us with thes escare tactics and debts because lawmakers were too pansie to tell us we need to pay for our government.

  6. I glommed my benefit as soon as I hit 62. I was afraid they’d change the game, and I’d get less if I waited (although, the estimates said more).

    I am definitely in favor of lifting the limits on income for SSI taxes. If they screech about that, then lower the amount of the benefit for every $10,000 the recipient DIDN’T pay into SSI. They won’t need it anyway. Still, there are those who collect SSI when they’ve already got plenty of money to live on.

  7. I did the e-form, but I’ll be sur to call as well. And thanks for putting the points so clearly and succinctly. I hope you don’t mind that I did a little cut-n-paste for the letter.

  8. TC,
    you’re right SS is totally viable, just raise the cap since millionaires like McCain who oppose it are collecting.The least the bastard could have done would have been to put in a bit more.

    Lot of misled people still believe that Republican “iou’s in a lockbox” thing. The Trustees are mandated to put SS funds in interest-bearing treasuries. Nobody borrows anything, the funds could I guess be credited to some non-interest bearing account but why not gain interest?

    We aren’t on the gold standard, all money is in effect an IOU. If you purchase a T-bill your account is debited and another account is credited. When it matures your old account is credited and the T-bill no longer exists. The SS Trust Fund exists in the same way.

  9. I wish the government over here would recompute the cost of living.

    A single senior gets about $1200 a month, with something that may laughably be called an “income supplement”

    Most affordable rent in Toronto is about $l,000 per month.

    The government today in its speech from the throne, decreed that there will be no further government spending on any program, including a salary cap for Members of Parliament and Senators. Some Senators make up to a million a year And their pension is in the hundreds of thousands….. It’s to fight recession and reduce the deficit, they say.
    I guess living on fifty a week might be noble–but stupid. And why us?

    .

  10. Truth, your recollection is correct. It started with Nixon. Reagan’s “middle class” tax cuts for the rich accelerated the process. My point is that, since I pay a higher percentage of my poverty-line income than most billionaires, taxing me more would be far less just and way far less efficient.

    Marva, that’s an excellent point. Did you have any trouble with the interface?

    Thank YOU Eddie. When it comes to progressive matters, my operative mantra is: “Thou shalt steal!”

    Thanks Oso. Great analysis.

    Ivan, it’s worse here. I get under $900, and our dollars are worth less than loonies.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.