Support on Capitol Hill for saving Social Security must be stronger than I thought: Pete Peterson’s flying monkeys are working overtime dropping dungbombs on anyone who opposes gutting the government program that lifted elderly Americans out of the grinding poverty that was their standard fate before 1935.
On Wednesday we saw the New York Times’ David “Mr. Peterson’s a great guy, really” Leonhardt favorably citing a WaPo piece by Robert Pozen that was a half-baked Sachertorte of anti-Social-Security myths, all of which CEPR’s Dean Baker had effortlessly punctured when Pozen had circulated them via the Boston Globe back in December. Friday, we see Charles Blahous, co-author of a “kill it to save it” report on Social Security that was (surprise!) funded in part by Pete Peterson, telling Americans yet again that anyone who defends Social Security from Peterson stooges like him is actually hurting America:
Predictions in politics are dangerous, but I make one here for the record: If Social Security repairs are delayed several more years, then within one generation from now we will witness the end of Social Security as we have long known it. The irony would be that the program was done in by its supposed defenders.
Will all due respect, Mr. Peterson Shill, you are spewing used food. Once again, CEPR’s Dean Baker comes to the rescue, explaining what Blahous won’t tell you:
Politicians routinely make similarly absurd statements about Social Security, implying that the program and the country are about to go broke. Of course both claims are obviously untrue. According to the Social Security trustees, the program can pay all scheduled benefits for the next 26 years with no changes whatsoever and even after that date can always pay close to 80 percent of scheduled benefits. Instead of our children being broke, average wages are projected to be more than 40 percent higher in 2040 than they are today.
That’s also assuming the Trustees’ typical low-balled growth rates of 1.9% forever and ever — in other words, a never-ending Great Depression — actually pan out, which is highly unlikely. As Irwin Kellner stated back in 2005, during the height of the Bush Administration phase of Pete Peterson’s war on Social Security:
Ten years ago, the system’s actuaries thought the trust fund would be depleted by 2029. Five years ago they thought it would be 2032. Now the date when the surplus is expected to be gone is 2042 — and the Congressional Budget Office thinks it could be 2052.
The reason for these changing projections? More money coming in than previously expected.
This alone should signal policymakers that major surgery may not be needed. But when you look at the assumptions underlying these projections, you have to be even more cautious.
[...]
The actuaries assume that the U.S. economy will grow by an annual rate of 1.9 percent per year over the next 75 years. This is far below the 3.6 percent average of the past 75 years — a period that includes the Great Depression.
The system’s actuaries have a somewhat more optimistic projection. It assumes, among other things, a slightly faster rate of growth of 2.7 percent per year over the same period.
While this, too, is below the economy’s 75-year average, it shows that the system never runs out of money. That’s right, never.
That’s right, folks: so long as the economy even does mediocre growth over the long term, Social Security is in fine shape. In other words, the only thing truly imperiling it are the Pete Peterson pillocks who want to pillage it and put us all on cat food.




54 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Take the money out of SS and the folks will put more money in 401ks held by banks and administered(1-2% minimum annual fees) by banking geniasses.
We should want to give our money to Wall Street so they can use it to invest for them, keep the profits themselves, and give us peanuts.
The WaPoo has shown itself to be a continual inferior product. Like Fox nooze, they have no need of truth or facts.
D. Baker is awesome!
Wish somebody would corner the repugs and ask them exactly what their problem is with our paid for Social Insurance programs!
Heck, we should yank the government pension from any member of Congress that votes against our SS! We paid for ours, we paid for theirs. Which one is fairest?
It’s all about the oligarchs…now if we could just come up with a different word for them that would resonate with people. Oligarchs? Huh?
The war on the middle class will continue until what remains of the middle class understands what’s being done to them. We need words they/we can grasp.
Kochroaches. Tyrants. New Stalinistas….
Given the all-out assault underway from the Rethugs across America, their flouting of facts and laws, we laze at our peril. Who’s to say, given their actions thus far, that if Wisconsiners voted to recall Rethugs they would actually go if they lost.
Despotism is alive and well from The Village to the nooks and crannies of the Heartland.
The attack on Social Security is already underway. Obama’s so called ‘tax holiday’ is defunding the amount of funds going into Social Security by $100 million this year which will prevent the trust fund from going to $2.5 trillion from $2.4 trillion. How dishonest to say they are trying to save Social Security when they have already started defunding it!
It’s entitlement spending that’s keeping America afloat. Eliminating it would be
like FDR calling off the New Deal.
Retirees have surrendered and are (AS WE SPEAK) surrendering their interest income in support of the bankers who created this mess, even as Mr. Davidowitz wants to privatize Social Security.
http://www.businessinsider.com/howard-davidowitz-market-crash
Medicare is National Health Insurance for the elderly, customers the health insurance
cartel would not want anything to do except on a cost plus 20% basis (that, then,
actually maximizing the incentive to INCREASE cost.) None of those patients could
ever qualify for real coverage independently absent the beginning of “rationalization.”
By the way medical savings accounts disincentivize early discovery or cancer and other diseases in favor of fresh bonus money for very bad mortgage Ponzi
architects.
Incentives for efficiency and scientific ambition are good. Incentives for making
suckers out of the American public is bad.
Fiscal stimulus has helped. Monetary accommodation has been inordinately targeted at and lavish for the TBTF banks.
I’ve earlier called Mr. Obama the Dean Martin President, but then he’s already
known by his nickname “no drama Obama.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxWxq-1RWhg
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
I see that Japan has figured out a way to deal with its social security/demography problem: irradiation.
In the future, please refer to the Post as what it has become: the agitprop department of the student loan profiteering arm of the Graham crime family known as Kaplan U.
The national Democratic Party is too weighed down with special interests money to be an effective change agent. Please sign this petition if you agree with this new progressive vision for the party.
Demand That These Bold, Progressive Policies Be Included In The Democratic Party Platform – 2012!
1. Put Millions Back To Work – Federal government invest $2 trillion over 10 years through a national infrastructure bank (run by engineers, not politicians) to create jobs now and increase productivity later. Fund with a millionaire’s tax
2. Balance The Budget – over time by raising taxes on the super-rich, contain the explosion of health-care costs, end agricultural subsidies, stop corporate welfare, cut the defense budget, end the wars (another form of corporate welfare)
3. Reduce Health Care Costs – add the public option. Allow Medicare to purchase drugs. Give MEDPAC wider authority. Allow drug re-importation
4. Encourage Upward Mobility In Society – make higher education free to families that can’t afford it. Fund with a financial transactions and bank tax
5. Keep Social Security Solvent For Generations – raise the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax to $180,000. Congress could also gradually slow the growth of benefits for middle and high earners while still allowing these benefits to rise in terms of absolute dollars and purchasing power. Lower-wage earners would receive everything they are now promised. Eliminate $4.8 trillion long-term deficit
6. End Foreclosure Crisis – begin by giving bankruptcy judges the power to order reductions in mortgage principal owed
7. End National Addiction To Oil – begin with a carbon tax to reduce consumption, increase energy efficiency and make alternative energy more cost-competitive. Revenues generated should go to reducing payroll taxes to stimulate employment
8. End Politicians Addiction To Money – enact the Fair Elections Now Act. Strictly voluntary. Matching funds. $100.00 maximum donation.
9. End The Bank Monopoly – break up the big banks and strengthen the Volker Rule
10. Never Renew Bush Tax Cuts
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/18/demand-that-these-bold-progressive-policies-are-included-in-the-democratic-party-platform—2012/
Who is going to provide the funds to enact this program.
Since one can anticipate that T-Paw would be among the loudest drum major leaders for the politics of Peterson/Kochroaches/et al, [and it's no coincidence that the parade scene from Animal House pops into my head], it should be pointed out that T-Paw does not have a Sharia law problem….
He has an Alphonso Rodriguez problem.
idiot! it’s all paid for. please read again…
~~modnote – please, no name-calling~~
I like it.
We can haz peanuts with our catfood?
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
What TPTB don’t like about it is that _everyone_ is guaranteed to be at the top of the pyramid at some point in their life.
Not to pay for the program itself. But to pay for the campaign contributions to elect politicians who would actually vote for such a program.
Purchased through the USDA price support program. Agribusinesses only need apply.
Ding! Ding! That’s the correct answer!
Convince just enough people and reps that the system is “broke” and all that lovely green money will flow into the greedy hands of traders and bankers, and the bonuses money will continue to flow.
The amazing thing is, this process is so amazingly transparent, yet most American’s haven’t a clue regarding The Truth of the issue. It’s a tribute to the Big Lie marketing theory through calculated obfuscation.
Nobody’s convinced that the system is broke. Everyone knows it isn’t. This is just kabuki for Wall St. to gets its paws on that pile of dough.
by electing polticians that are willing to take a maximum $100 donation, you will probably get less corrupt government officials and people more willing to do the people’s work.
What I really want is to find a way to get progressives and (hopefully) Democrats to hold to a single theme–without fearing calling a liar a liar and stating that lies are lies–and repeat the core message, simple and true, for a decade, in all and every media, speech, interview, and essay.
Marketing 101: figure out your message, brew it down to a simple and instantly understood core set of points, and hold tightly to it for a long bloody time. All I add is the requirement that the message be The Truth.
(I win most-commas-of-the-day)
Ah but I hear this repeated from a *lot* of people, almost every day. Customers, suppliers, friends, realitives. They are convinced SS is in trouble. They hear it every day in every way and it’s stuck inside their heads.
The politicians that I hear claiming the system is “broke” are claiming that although there is a 2.5 trillion surplus in the system, it is a surplus of worthless paper bonds that the government doesn’t have the money to pay.
Instead of continually stating that there is a surplus, we also need to address the complaint that the surplus is made up of worthless government bonds.
Fly, monkeys, fly!
Goddess my spelling sucks in the morning. Sheesh. Sorry.
Here is an interesting observation from Digby as to the possible political dynamics for bringing the budget back into balance.
So you’re saying T-bills are worthless? Um, no.
Name names. Who are these pols willing to take max donations of $100. Or, if you don’t have specific names, how do you find them.
Then, how will they win against their opponents who have unlimited corp donations to fund TV ads, GOTV, rallies, lawns signs, etc.
Fair enough. I was speaking of the people sparking the effort, the pols & the think tanks.
Even so, with all the propaganda, the majority had not been convinced.
The problem with medical expenditures is not to find source to fund them, but to do meaningful cost control.
As if that were possible ….
I think they are both problems and are, of course, interwoven.
Not so.
All of the problem is on the cost side. Owing to the industry’s knowledge superiority and the vulnerability of their customers, they can charge whatever they want. The Mafia of the Intelligentsia, as I have termed it.
All?
Get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It’s the anti-communist, responsible, fiscally-intelligent, and most definitely, the most Patriotic thing to do for the
citizenscorporations of this great country, the United States of Austerity.What a bunch of stupid boneheads…
OilyBomber can’t wait to eviscerate SS and Medicare. He’ll just wait after he’s relected
The wealthy want the working class to pay into Social Security, but never be able to collect. That way they can use the funds collected for our nation’s retirement program as income tax. In this way the wealthy can avoid any tax increase on their income.
If you work for a living, just add 15.3% (the rate your wages are taxed for SS & Medicare) to your marginal tax rate to get your ACTUAL income tax rate.
“If” he gets re-elected.
Absent cyclical interruptions & vested interests (a thought experiment) no one thinks twice about ‘funding’ all the stuff where prices rise in line with economy averages.
The problem with the health care industry is that it is just that: an industry. I used to do cancer research for a non profit but that job went away when the economy blew up. For profit drug research is still going strong but that has been allowed to become so skewed toward the industry wants, with IRBs packed with industry shills and so forth, that lawsuits over improperly studied and rushed into the market drugs have skyrocketed. Of course, that’s passed on to the (American) consumer in the form of vastly inflated drug costs. And that isn’t even addressing equipment, some of which doesn’t actually do anything new but looks all fancy with bells and whistles, physicians who would have preferred to take a Randian Oath rather than the Hippocratic one, malpractice attorneys and etc. The only solution is to take the profit out of it. Pay doctors, nurses and staff well, they deserve it but the profit has to come out. The industry has to become a service. Period.
Amen!
I’m not saying any such thing. What I pointed out is that is what the republicans are on TV all the time saying and that in most cases no one ever calls them out on it. Tom Coburn was on Morning Joe a week or so ago making this claim and he had every one on the panel agreeing with him that Harry Reid and anyone else who states that social security has a surplus is lying. Coburn is making this claim because the surplus is not in CASH.
My belief is that it’s time for dems to come out swinging and take these guys on when they spout this shit. If these guys think the government doesn’t have to pay the debt back to social security, then why aren’t they also suggesting that we not pay back our debts to anyone else?
In reality when the republicans make statements like this, they are really telling countries like China etc that investing in any more of our bonds would be risky because we may decide one day we just don’t feel like paying them back. Because what they are suggesting is that we cut social security to avoid having to cash in any more of the surplus bonds that we are currently cashing in to cover payments. We started cashing in bonds last year. And, when the republicans claim social security can’t pay its bills currently, they mean with current tax collections. Social Security certainly can pay all its obligations by cashing in bonds to make up the difference. But, republicans don’t want the bonds cashed in because we have to either borrow money or raise taxes to pay for those bonds. They should have thought about that when they “borrowed” the social security surpluses to use for two wars, medicare prescription drug coverage and the Bush Tax Cuts.
Shockingly, this was uttered by a Republican!
Feb. 2, 2011 – Former U.S. Rep. and Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer is planning to push for the Republican nomination for president in 2012.
“In early March, I would like to go and give this type of presentation across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and see how it goes,” Roemer said.
In a passionate speech about his highs and lows as an entrepreneur, Roemer repeatedly digressed into his beliefs about the need for political reform in Washington.
“I think it is time for us to teach our current leadership that they can’t be corrupted by the money they are getting,” Roemer said. “I want my Congress and president to get their money from the people not from special interest. I’m going to show them how to do it, and I’m going to change the law. America is not for sale.”
Roemer also said he wouldn’t accept any campaign contributions more than $100.
“There are things all around us that we do a certain way out of habit that we don’t have to do that way,” Roemer said. “I’m going to run for president with a $100 limit. Every politician in America will laugh at me — you watch me whip their ass.”
Roemer was governor from 1988 to 1992 and likened his potential run for president to his winning run for governor against Edwin Edwards.
“He used to say, ‘The boy is sharp, but he can’t win. He won’t get the money,’” Roemer said. “I whipped his butt on that issue. It can be done.”
During most of the speech, he sounded sure of his candidacy, but he said he would rather see real change than be president.
“I’m not hungry to be president. I’m hungry to be in a country that continues to improve and is free of the corporate and special interest money,” Roemer said. “So we will see what happens. But unless I do this, it won’t change.”
Even though he has no chances of winning, I’ll grant you one.
The rest?
They all learned that lying their asses off was the way to public office since Obama did it so well.
There’s that too.
I was trying to be generous.
One of the prerequisites for fascism taking hold in a society is the belief that parliamentary/representative government is broken beyond repair and is, therefore, incapable of being responsive to the needs/wants of the people. This dysfunctional government is then confronted with a well organized authoritarian movement centered around a charismatic orator who gets the disgusted masses to enthusiastically endorse programs that are aimed at taking away their rights and economic well-being in the name of national unity.
O/Ting my own post, but this just came in:
Of course, she was hauled off, but not before the journos got her on video. (Anyone wanna bet the first thing Gaddafi’s people say about this non-veiled woman is that she’s from Al Qaeda?)
UPDATE: The NYT’s David Kirkpatrick, who differs with Sky in that he says she had nearly an hour to talk before being taken away, has more on her, including a name:
why does pete peterson and his cronies think it is better to tax seniors than the dead?
Dont tell me that cutting social security is NOT a tax.
Margaret, if you take the profit motive out of healthcare and drug research, who is going to invest the billions of dollars necessary to fund the next cancer treatment orbgene therapy?
Agreed on all points except “Balance The Budget”. It’s a nonsensical goal at the federal level.
A better way to set budget limits at the federal level would be to think of them in terms of real physical goals. So.. How much should we spend? Enough to provide full employment, full medical coverage and a dignified retirement for our seniors. And not a penny more!
TOFT
the road of a thousand miles begins with a single step
If we call it Social Security Insurence, it’s rightful name, we can help win the day. TPTB call it the Social Security entitlement. It is not an entitlement. It is insurence.
Margaret for President!
How about the term “royalty” or “royals”? Perhaps “monarchs”? Maybe “aristocracy” or “aristocrats” is even better. Whatever we choose, it has to reflect that the bad guys are the modern day equivalent of the brutish British rulers that we tossed out a couple of hundred years ago.
But isn’t it true that to redeem those Treasury Notes the government needs more tax revenue and that’s what really bothers the rich folks, that they’ll have to repay all that money they looted via other government programs?