BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label retirement age. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retirement age. Show all posts
04 December 2017
16 February 2017
Senate Narrowly Confirms Mulvaney As Trump's OMB Director & Senate Confirms Trump's Budget Nominee Mulvaney in a Close Vote 16FEB17
THE drumpf/trump-pence administration continues it's class warfare with the confirmation by the senate of mick mulvaney as fotze of the OMB / Office of Management and Budget. mulvaney is an enemy of the poor, the retired, working and middle classes, basically of anyone not part of the 1%. He is a proponent of cutting Social Security and Medicare, of pushing back the retirement age to the point that you work all your life and then die. He is a tea-bagging grover norquist republican serving the greed and lust for power of the rich and corporate America. At least all Senate Democrats and Sen John McCain r AZ voted against mulvaney. From +NPR and +Bloomberg .....
Senate Narrowly Confirms Mulvaney As Trump's OMB Director
February 16, 201711:07 AM ET
Rep. Mick Mulvaney, President Trump's pick to lead the White House's Office of Management and Budget, won a close confirmation vote in the full Senate on Thursday, two weeks after the Senate Budget Committee advanced the South Carolina Republican's nomination by a 12-11 vote.
In a back-and-forth voice vote, the tally was 50-47 when Sen. Mitch McConnell's name was called. His "aye" vote sealed the nomination with 51 senators in favor. As the votes rolled in, groups of Democrats and Republicans huddled on the Senate floor, locked in conversation.
Immediately after the vote, McConnell took the floor to begin consideration of another Trump nomination — that of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt for the post of U.S. EPA administrator.
Democrats who opposed Mulvaney's nomination spoke of his view that Social Security and Medicare must be overhauled — a move that, as NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month, Trump promised not to undertake.
At least one Republican — Sen. John McCain of Arizona — had said he would vote against Mulvaney's confirmation, in a move McCain said was based on the congressman's position on defense spending. In the past, McCain also faulted Mulvaney for his role in the 2013 government shutdown.
Mulvaney "is a prominent member of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of around 40 conservatives that grew out of the Tea Party movement," as we reported when his nomination was announced.
In the House, Mulvaney played a prominent role in the shutdown of the federal government over a budget impasse in late 2013. He had advocated for a similar shutdown back in 2011.
Mulvaney's confirmation follows a setback for Trump: On Wednesday, his labor secretary nominee, fast-food executive Andrew Puzder, withdrew his name from consideration after failing to get enough support from Republicans.
Senate Confirms Trump's Budget Nominee Mulvaney in a Close Vote
Mick Mulvaney, who has focused his Washington career on driving down federal spending -- even at the risk of shutting down the government and defaulting on the debt -- won confirmation Thursday as President Donald Trump’s budget chief.
The Senate’s 51-49 vote to put the South Carolina congressman in charge of the Office of Management and Budget sends Mulvaney into the center of all federal spending decisions. Among them: funding the government for the rest of fiscal 2017, because the current spending law runs only through April 28.
Mulvaney will present Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget request to Congress in the coming months, and has said he would recommend the president pay for infrastructure investment and a military buildup with deep spending cuts, including to entitlements.
“He will do a spectacular job of this,” Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi said on the Senate floor. “He will be a voice for fiscal restraint, responsible budgets and for honest budgeting that avoids the use of gimmicks such as emergency funding designations for non-emergencies.”
Mulvaney was first elected to Congress as part of the 2010 Tea Party wave. He built a record as an aggressive advocate for budget cuts, and as an opponent of using emergency war funds to avoid caps on military spending
That led Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain to oppose the nomination because of Mulvaney’s record on military spending. Aging Committee Chairman Susan Collins of Maine and Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran waited until Wednesday evening to signal their support.
All Senate Democrats voted against confirmation.
“He has used debt ceiling and shutdown as a leverage to gain his way on points of lesser importance than whether the government stays open,” Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine said in a Senate floor speech.
Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida, where the Census Bureau estimates that 19.4 percent of the state’s population is 65 or older, said he worried that Mulvaney would push to restrain the growth of entitlement programs by making seniors wait until age 67 for Medicare and age 70 for Social Security.
“He called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He further has said he supports turning Medicare into a voucher system,” Nelson said on the Senate floor.
In his confirmation hearing, Mulvaney told senators he would recommend that Trump reverse his campaign promise not to cut Medicare and Social Security, because phased-in cuts for future seniors now would keep the program solvent.
“I talked to him about my concern that he had never voted for a budget or a debt limit increase and he said that he recognized he would have a very different role as an OMB director than he would as a congressman from South Carolina,” Collins said in an interview after a private meeting with Mulvaney.
As a congressman, Mulvaney opposed a stopgap spending bill needed to keep the government running into the early months of the Trump administration, objected to using budget gimmicks to let the Pentagon avoid the pain of automatic spending cuts, and was one of the ringleaders of a breakaway group of lawmakers who bristled at the willingness of their fellow Republicans, then led by Speaker John Boehner, to govern through compromise.
Their group, the House Freedom Caucus, was a thorn in Boehner’s side and a contributing factor to the Ohioan’s 2015 decision to quit without finishing his term in office.
Shutdown Provocateur
Mulvaney was one of the leaders of the effort to defund Obamacare that resulted in a 16-day partial government shutdown. The government reopened without cuts to Obamacare.
He also wasn’t successful when he pushed his colleagues to offset the extra dollars spent on emergencies such as Hurricane Sandy by subtracting money approved for some other government purpose.
He so distanced himself from the governing wing of the Republican Party that he refused at campaign time to kick in money to the National Republican Congressional Committee.
26 April 2012
Social Security and Medicare: Six Common Myths, Debunked 24APR12 & Social Security In US Less Generous Than Similar Countries 21APR12
AS negotiations for the 2013 budget begin, and the deadline for federal budget cuts loom we will be bombarded with propaganda, misinformation and deception about Social Security and Medicare in an attempt to raise the retirement age and cut benefits. Here are some of the lies and facts about these programs from HuffPost and Crooks & Liars.....
In the coming days and weeks we'll be hearing a lot of misinformation about the Trustees Report from the Social Security Administration. It's time to separate the myths from the realities:
1. Myth: "Social Security and Medicare have a cost problem."
Fact: Medicare has a financial problem. As this chart shows, the cost of providing Social Security benefits is not out of control or skyrocketing.
Fact: That's a headline we saw repeated across the country in anticipation of the Trustees Report, but it's wrong. What's "straining" Social Security and Medicare today is the unequal distribution of income and a broken regulatory system for Wall Street that has put the entire economy under stress.
Social Security was actuarially stable after it was overhauled by the Greenspan Commission in the 1980s. The baby boomers were all alive and (mostly) working by then. So what really happened?
First, a radical upward shift in income toward the "1 percent" -- and the "0.0001 percent" -- meant that more and more of the nation's income was above the payroll tax cap threshold. That reduced the revenue for Social Security (and much of Medicare) from a projected 90 percent of national income to a figure that's closer to 83 percent.
Secondly, a financial crisis brought on by reckless and under-regulated Wall Street banks crashed the economy in 2008. For millions of Americans it has never come back. Joblessness, along with wage stagnation for the "99 percent," further depleted the programs' revenues.
3. Myth: We need to place limits on Medicare spending and cut its benefits.
Fact: That's like saying the way to end forest fires is by firing Smokey Bear. Benefit cuts and spending caps won't solve our health cost problem. There has been an explosion of for-profit hospital chains in the last twenty years, along with profit-driven laboratories, imaging centers, and other types of health providers.
In addition, our system of reimbursing physicians provides an incentive for them to treat more and charge more for their services. That's costly -- and it subjects patients to a lot of unnecessary tests. On top of that, the lion's share of our health economy is "managed" by for-profit insurance companies who have little motivation or skill when it comes to prudent fiscal management.
If we expand Medicare to our entire population we'd have a health system like that of all other industrialized countries -- whose health costs are roughly 60 percent of our own and grow more slowly than our own. Medicare's cost problem would be solved.
By contrast, the solutions being floated in Washington wouldn't fix the problem -- they'd just dump it onto the backs of seniors and the disabled.
4. Myth: We can't get our federal deficits under control without cutting Social Security benefits -- either by raising the eligibility age, placing gimmicky limits on cost-of-living adjustments, or all of the above.
Fact: Social Security is forbidden by law from contributing to the federal deficit. It's an entirely self-sustaining program. If the day comes when it can't pay its full scheduled benefits, those benefits must and will be cut. This is a phony argument.
5. Myth: Too many millionaires are collecting Social Security and Medicare, so we should means-test and deny them these benefits.
Fact: The number of actual "millionaires" on Social Security and Medicare is tiny, by any objective measure. It wouldn't have any significant impact on their budgets to exclude them -- although it would help a lot to tax them.
(Oh, we can't do that! say the "centrists.")
What's more, Medicare and Social Security are social insurance programs. By definition, insurance shouldn't be means-testing like welfare and other aid programs, because you've already paid your premiums. The "means-testing" argument is often used to mischacterize these programs as "welfare," instead of what they really are: Something people have paid into through the payroll tax throughout their working lives, and (in Medicare's case) which they've also supported through their taxes.
6. Myth: Social Security benefits are too generous. They need to be cut because we can't afford them.
Fact: Our Social Security benefits are lower than those of nations that are economically similar to the US. As we said, the current reductions in revenue were caused by 1) an upward distribution of wealth to the "1 percent" and 2) a financial crisis brought about by Wall Street greed and speculation.
That suggests two possible solutions to Social Security's 20-year-from-now problem: 1) Lift the payroll tax cap, and/or 2) impose a small financial transactions tax on Wall Street and use it to make up the Social Security shortfall. Either of these approaches would solve the problem.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and the host of The Breakdown, broadcast Saturdays nights from 7-9 pm on WeAct Radio, AM 1480 in Washington, D.C.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/social-security-and-medic_b_1450729.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
When compared to other similar countries, retirement benefits in the United States are relatively modest. A report from CNBC took a closer look at retirement systems in numerous countries and found the U.S. to be performing lower than the average. Retirees in the U.S. generally receive about 47 percent of their pre-retirement income on Social Security. Similar programs in Europe and elsewhere generally pay about 68 percent of pre-retirement income.
In the 2011 Melbourne Mercer Global Pensions Index, the U.S. was given a middling grade of "C," along with France, Singapore, Brazil, Poland and Germany.
http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/social-security-us-less-generous-
In the coming days and weeks we'll be hearing a lot of misinformation about the Trustees Report from the Social Security Administration. It's time to separate the myths from the realities:
1. Myth: "Social Security and Medicare have a cost problem."
Fact: Medicare has a financial problem. As this chart shows, the cost of providing Social Security benefits is not out of control or skyrocketing.
Fact: That's a headline we saw repeated across the country in anticipation of the Trustees Report, but it's wrong. What's "straining" Social Security and Medicare today is the unequal distribution of income and a broken regulatory system for Wall Street that has put the entire economy under stress.
Social Security was actuarially stable after it was overhauled by the Greenspan Commission in the 1980s. The baby boomers were all alive and (mostly) working by then. So what really happened?
First, a radical upward shift in income toward the "1 percent" -- and the "0.0001 percent" -- meant that more and more of the nation's income was above the payroll tax cap threshold. That reduced the revenue for Social Security (and much of Medicare) from a projected 90 percent of national income to a figure that's closer to 83 percent.
Secondly, a financial crisis brought on by reckless and under-regulated Wall Street banks crashed the economy in 2008. For millions of Americans it has never come back. Joblessness, along with wage stagnation for the "99 percent," further depleted the programs' revenues.
3. Myth: We need to place limits on Medicare spending and cut its benefits.
Fact: That's like saying the way to end forest fires is by firing Smokey Bear. Benefit cuts and spending caps won't solve our health cost problem. There has been an explosion of for-profit hospital chains in the last twenty years, along with profit-driven laboratories, imaging centers, and other types of health providers.
In addition, our system of reimbursing physicians provides an incentive for them to treat more and charge more for their services. That's costly -- and it subjects patients to a lot of unnecessary tests. On top of that, the lion's share of our health economy is "managed" by for-profit insurance companies who have little motivation or skill when it comes to prudent fiscal management.
If we expand Medicare to our entire population we'd have a health system like that of all other industrialized countries -- whose health costs are roughly 60 percent of our own and grow more slowly than our own. Medicare's cost problem would be solved.
By contrast, the solutions being floated in Washington wouldn't fix the problem -- they'd just dump it onto the backs of seniors and the disabled.
4. Myth: We can't get our federal deficits under control without cutting Social Security benefits -- either by raising the eligibility age, placing gimmicky limits on cost-of-living adjustments, or all of the above.
Fact: Social Security is forbidden by law from contributing to the federal deficit. It's an entirely self-sustaining program. If the day comes when it can't pay its full scheduled benefits, those benefits must and will be cut. This is a phony argument.
5. Myth: Too many millionaires are collecting Social Security and Medicare, so we should means-test and deny them these benefits.
Fact: The number of actual "millionaires" on Social Security and Medicare is tiny, by any objective measure. It wouldn't have any significant impact on their budgets to exclude them -- although it would help a lot to tax them.
(Oh, we can't do that! say the "centrists.")
What's more, Medicare and Social Security are social insurance programs. By definition, insurance shouldn't be means-testing like welfare and other aid programs, because you've already paid your premiums. The "means-testing" argument is often used to mischacterize these programs as "welfare," instead of what they really are: Something people have paid into through the payroll tax throughout their working lives, and (in Medicare's case) which they've also supported through their taxes.
6. Myth: Social Security benefits are too generous. They need to be cut because we can't afford them.
Fact: Our Social Security benefits are lower than those of nations that are economically similar to the US. As we said, the current reductions in revenue were caused by 1) an upward distribution of wealth to the "1 percent" and 2) a financial crisis brought about by Wall Street greed and speculation.
That suggests two possible solutions to Social Security's 20-year-from-now problem: 1) Lift the payroll tax cap, and/or 2) impose a small financial transactions tax on Wall Street and use it to make up the Social Security shortfall. Either of these approaches would solve the problem.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and the host of The Breakdown, broadcast Saturdays nights from 7-9 pm on WeAct Radio, AM 1480 in Washington, D.C.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/social-security-and-medic_b_1450729.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
Social Security In US Less Generous Than Similar Countries
When compared to other similar countries, retirement benefits in the United States are relatively modest. A report from CNBC took a closer look at retirement systems in numerous countries and found the U.S. to be performing lower than the average. Retirees in the U.S. generally receive about 47 percent of their pre-retirement income on Social Security. Similar programs in Europe and elsewhere generally pay about 68 percent of pre-retirement income.
In the 2011 Melbourne Mercer Global Pensions Index, the U.S. was given a middling grade of "C," along with France, Singapore, Brazil, Poland and Germany.
A country given a C has “a system that has some good features, but also has major risks and/or shortcomings that should be addressed,” the report states. “Without these improvements, its efficacy and/or long-term sustainability can be questioned.”The Service Employees International Union, among other organizations, is calling upon Washington to improve the U.S. retirement system:
The United States ranked close to average among 16 countries in adequacy of benefits provided and above average in sustainability, the likelihood that the system can maintain the benefits in the future. It fell short, however, on a sub-index focused on the private sector pension system.
The U.S. could take steps for a better score, the report said, including raising the minimum benefit for low-income retirees, improving benefits vesting, and further limiting access to funds before retirement.
The fastest, most efficient and fairest way to improve retirement security in the United States is to strengthen Social Security. Social Security is often the sole source of retirement income for low wage workers who are less likely to have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. The problem with Social Security is that its retirement benefits are less than $1,200 per month for millions of low wage workers.SEIU reports that the upper one percent of Americans have already stopped paying Social Security taxes for 2012 because of a cap on what earnings pay into the system. Currently, once someone reaches $110,100 of income they have paid Social Security taxes on, they pay no more into the system for the year. Eliminating this cap is widely seen as the easiest and fairest solution to shoring up the future of Social Security. SEIU has an action opportunity for citizens to contact Congress and demand they scrap the cap.
http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/social-security-us-less-generous-
13 October 2011
This is one ANGRY lady....WOW! But I agree, he is an arrogant SOB!!! (Always has been!) 13OKT11 & A Tea Party Darling’s Offer on Social Security from the New York Times & See Charles Koch Flip Flop on Social Security [VIDEO] 29SEP11
GOT this today from a good family friend who is an old school Republican, conservative, and quite concerned about Social Security. Notice the reference to Pres Obama, proof positive this is just another piece or right wing repiglican/tea-bagger propaganda feeding the fear of and racist hatred for that black boogyman President we're "sufferin" under. I sent him my post on this blog from 1OKT11 and also pointed out, because of this statement that was added to beginning of the e mail during it's journey through cyberspace
"This senior should be an inspiration to us all to write somewhat similiar letters to liberal legislators serving "our" districts."
that Alan Simpson was a ultra conservative Republican Senator from Wyoming, nothing liberal about him at all. So here is the e mail and my response....
THIS SENIOR CITIZEN NAILED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama's deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
If you like the way things are in America delete this. If you agree with what a fellow Montana citizen Patty Myers says, PASS IT ON!!!!
By KATE ZERNIKE
"This senior should be an inspiration to us all to write somewhat similiar letters to liberal legislators serving "our" districts."
that Alan Simpson was a ultra conservative Republican Senator from Wyoming, nothing liberal about him at all. So here is the e mail and my response....
THIS SENIOR CITIZEN NAILED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama's deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
August, 2010.
Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!
Listen up. Direct from Ms Myers:
"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight..
1. As a career politician, You have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..
4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that yOu just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU.
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4.. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.
And you cAn take that to the bank, you miserable old son of bitch!!"
Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!
Listen up. Direct from Ms Myers:
"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight..
1. As a career politician, You have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..
4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that yOu just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU.
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4.. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.
And you cAn take that to the bank, you miserable old son of bitch!!"
If you like the way things are in America delete this. If you agree with what a fellow Montana citizen Patty Myers says, PASS IT ON!!!!
A Tea Party Darling’s Offer on Social Security from the New York Times & See Charles Koch Flip Flop on Social Security [VIDEO] 29SEP11
MORE typical gop / tea-bagger hypocrisy on Social Security (and health care). Goes right along with their idolatrous worship of ayn rand, another hypocriticBy KATE ZERNIKE
The writings of Friedrich Hayek, the 20th century free-market enthusiast and Nobel laureate, have long been a favorite of libertarians, who have used them to argue that government programs like Social Security and Medicare put the nation and its people on what Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom.”
With the advent of the anti-stimulus, anti-big government Tea Party movement, he has enjoyed fresh affection — protesters quote him on their signs at rallies, and Ron Paul reports that people no longer go blank when he mentions Hayek’s name. (For those needing a primer on the differences between Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, who is enjoying fresh antipathy among the ranks of Tea Party supporters, there is a useful rap video.)
But critics like to point out that Tea Party supporters and libertarians are perfectly happy enjoying big government when it works for them. And now it appears that Hayek himself was encouraged to enjoy the benefits of government retirement and health care programs — by one of the country’s most prominent libertarians, the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.
According to a series of letters brought to light by The Nation , Mr. Koch wrote to Hayek in 1973 asking him to be a scholar in residence at the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian group founded by Mr. Koch. Hayek declined, saying that he recently had had surgery in Austria, which made him anxious about “the problems (and costs)” of falling ill far from home.
An associate of Mr. Koch’s wrote back to suggest that Hayek could take advantage of the generosity of Social Security if he came to this country (and noting that it would be prohibitive to secure him private health insurance here.) Mr. Koch followed up with another letter, enclosing a brochure on the benefits of Social Security, and noting that while in this country, Hayek (who had become eligible for government benefits because of his earlier employment at the University of Chicago) would also get free hospital care.
This was more than a decade after Hayek (who died in 1992) had written against Social Security in “The Constitution of Liberty,” calling such safety net programs the pathway to social and moral decay.
Mr. Koch went on to finance several institutions and organizations whose primary mission is to work against government spending and regulation. One, Americans for Prosperity, has given money to Tea Party groups, which surged in membership as they fought against legislation that would expand health care coverage to millions more Americans. (Americans for Prosperity sponsored a bus tour against the legislation.)
The Nation obtained the letters through the Hayek archives at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. “Nowhere,” the magazine notes, “do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It’s simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used.”
Charles and David Koch built an distortion machine to do their dirty work for them. Through think tanks, academic research, political donations and conservative media, the Koch brothers have steamrolled Americans into believing things that are false and into supporting policies that benefit the Koch brothers' profits.
Social Security has long been among the brothers' favorite punching bags, but new reporting by the Nation shows Charles Koch praising, advocating -- practically begging an ultra-free market economist and mentor to participate and enjoy Social Security benefits.
That Charles Koch would promote and grow Social Security is at odds with his efforts and donations to politicians and think tanks to destroy Social Security, as our Koch Brothers Exposed campaign has proven.
In one letter cited by the Nation, Charles Koch's colleagues at another think tank, the Institute for Humane Studies, detail a loophole whereby the Austrian-born and ultra-laissez faire economist Friedrich Hayek could opt into Social Security. Soon after that letter was shipped off, Koch wrote a personal appeal extolling the benefits of Social Security to Hayek. He brought up Medicare too. Koch said the program would cover Hayek's medical needs even further.
He sends Hayek a Social Security brochure along with the note: "You may be interested in the information that we uncovered on the insurance and other benefits that would be available to you in this country... you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World."
The Koch brothers have donated $28.4 million to think thanks that aim to destroy a social safety net for middle class Americans, and Hayek pioneered that ideology in many ways. Through the Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers have found a new audience for Hayek's philosophy.
Not only could an Austrian-born crusader against social safety nets draw entitlements from American taxpayers, but according to Koch, Hayek could do so while residing (and paying taxes) in the U.S. or any nation on Earth. This is a dramatic leap of faith from Koch orthodoxy, where government and public service are problems that hamper the Koch brothers' $100 billion business.
As the Nation rightfully points out, when Texas Governor Rick Perry says Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," that sentiment stems directly from the Kochs, who through their wealth have given Hayek a resurgence of popularity through the brothers' echo chamber and billion dollar distortion machine.
The Nation wonders why Charles Koch didn't offer some of his own money to treat Hayek's health issues. The reason is because the Koch brothers are selfish. Indeed the Koch brothers, and how they spend their wealth, is transforming selfishness into an American virtue.
With the advent of the anti-stimulus, anti-big government Tea Party movement, he has enjoyed fresh affection — protesters quote him on their signs at rallies, and Ron Paul reports that people no longer go blank when he mentions Hayek’s name. (For those needing a primer on the differences between Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, who is enjoying fresh antipathy among the ranks of Tea Party supporters, there is a useful rap video.)
But critics like to point out that Tea Party supporters and libertarians are perfectly happy enjoying big government when it works for them. And now it appears that Hayek himself was encouraged to enjoy the benefits of government retirement and health care programs — by one of the country’s most prominent libertarians, the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.
According to a series of letters brought to light by The Nation , Mr. Koch wrote to Hayek in 1973 asking him to be a scholar in residence at the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian group founded by Mr. Koch. Hayek declined, saying that he recently had had surgery in Austria, which made him anxious about “the problems (and costs)” of falling ill far from home.
An associate of Mr. Koch’s wrote back to suggest that Hayek could take advantage of the generosity of Social Security if he came to this country (and noting that it would be prohibitive to secure him private health insurance here.) Mr. Koch followed up with another letter, enclosing a brochure on the benefits of Social Security, and noting that while in this country, Hayek (who had become eligible for government benefits because of his earlier employment at the University of Chicago) would also get free hospital care.
This was more than a decade after Hayek (who died in 1992) had written against Social Security in “The Constitution of Liberty,” calling such safety net programs the pathway to social and moral decay.
Mr. Koch went on to finance several institutions and organizations whose primary mission is to work against government spending and regulation. One, Americans for Prosperity, has given money to Tea Party groups, which surged in membership as they fought against legislation that would expand health care coverage to millions more Americans. (Americans for Prosperity sponsored a bus tour against the legislation.)
The Nation obtained the letters through the Hayek archives at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. “Nowhere,” the magazine notes, “do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It’s simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used.”
See Charles Koch Flip Flop on Social Security [VIDEO]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/see-charles-koch-flip-flo_b_988111.htmlCharles and David Koch built an distortion machine to do their dirty work for them. Through think tanks, academic research, political donations and conservative media, the Koch brothers have steamrolled Americans into believing things that are false and into supporting policies that benefit the Koch brothers' profits.
Social Security has long been among the brothers' favorite punching bags, but new reporting by the Nation shows Charles Koch praising, advocating -- practically begging an ultra-free market economist and mentor to participate and enjoy Social Security benefits.
That Charles Koch would promote and grow Social Security is at odds with his efforts and donations to politicians and think tanks to destroy Social Security, as our Koch Brothers Exposed campaign has proven.
In one letter cited by the Nation, Charles Koch's colleagues at another think tank, the Institute for Humane Studies, detail a loophole whereby the Austrian-born and ultra-laissez faire economist Friedrich Hayek could opt into Social Security. Soon after that letter was shipped off, Koch wrote a personal appeal extolling the benefits of Social Security to Hayek. He brought up Medicare too. Koch said the program would cover Hayek's medical needs even further.
He sends Hayek a Social Security brochure along with the note: "You may be interested in the information that we uncovered on the insurance and other benefits that would be available to you in this country... you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World."
The Koch brothers have donated $28.4 million to think thanks that aim to destroy a social safety net for middle class Americans, and Hayek pioneered that ideology in many ways. Through the Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers have found a new audience for Hayek's philosophy.
Not only could an Austrian-born crusader against social safety nets draw entitlements from American taxpayers, but according to Koch, Hayek could do so while residing (and paying taxes) in the U.S. or any nation on Earth. This is a dramatic leap of faith from Koch orthodoxy, where government and public service are problems that hamper the Koch brothers' $100 billion business.
As the Nation rightfully points out, when Texas Governor Rick Perry says Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," that sentiment stems directly from the Kochs, who through their wealth have given Hayek a resurgence of popularity through the brothers' echo chamber and billion dollar distortion machine.
The Nation wonders why Charles Koch didn't offer some of his own money to treat Hayek's health issues. The reason is because the Koch brothers are selfish. Indeed the Koch brothers, and how they spend their wealth, is transforming selfishness into an American virtue.
01 October 2011
A Tea Party Darling’s Offer on Social Security from the New York Times & See Charles Koch Flip Flop on Social Security [VIDEO] 29SEP11
MORE typical gop / tea-bagger hypocrisy on Social Security (and health care). Goes right along with their idolatrous worship of ayn rand, another hypocritic
By KATE ZERNIKE
By KATE ZERNIKE
The writings of Friedrich Hayek, the 20th century free-market enthusiast and Nobel laureate, have long been a favorite of libertarians, who have used them to argue that government programs like Social Security and Medicare put the nation and its people on what Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom.”
With the advent of the anti-stimulus, anti-big government Tea Party movement, he has enjoyed fresh affection — protesters quote him on their signs at rallies, and Ron Paul reports that people no longer go blank when he mentions Hayek’s name. (For those needing a primer on the differences between Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, who is enjoying fresh antipathy among the ranks of Tea Party supporters, there is a useful rap video.)
But critics like to point out that Tea Party supporters and libertarians are perfectly happy enjoying big government when it works for them. And now it appears that Hayek himself was encouraged to enjoy the benefits of government retirement and health care programs — by one of the country’s most prominent libertarians, the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.
According to a series of letters brought to light by The Nation , Mr. Koch wrote to Hayek in 1973 asking him to be a scholar in residence at the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian group founded by Mr. Koch. Hayek declined, saying that he recently had had surgery in Austria, which made him anxious about “the problems (and costs)” of falling ill far from home.
An associate of Mr. Koch’s wrote back to suggest that Hayek could take advantage of the generosity of Social Security if he came to this country (and noting that it would be prohibitive to secure him private health insurance here.) Mr. Koch followed up with another letter, enclosing a brochure on the benefits of Social Security, and noting that while in this country, Hayek (who had become eligible for government benefits because of his earlier employment at the University of Chicago) would also get free hospital care.
This was more than a decade after Hayek (who died in 1992) had written against Social Security in “The Constitution of Liberty,” calling such safety net programs the pathway to social and moral decay.
Mr. Koch went on to finance several institutions and organizations whose primary mission is to work against government spending and regulation. One, Americans for Prosperity, has given money to Tea Party groups, which surged in membership as they fought against legislation that would expand health care coverage to millions more Americans. (Americans for Prosperity sponsored a bus tour against the legislation.)
The Nation obtained the letters through the Hayek archives at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. “Nowhere,” the magazine notes, “do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It’s simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used.”
Charles and David Koch built an distortion machine to do their dirty work for them. Through think tanks, academic research, political donations and conservative media, the Koch brothers have steamrolled Americans into believing things that are false and into supporting policies that benefit the Koch brothers' profits.
Social Security has long been among the brothers' favorite punching bags, but new reporting by the Nation shows Charles Koch praising, advocating -- practically begging an ultra-free market economist and mentor to participate and enjoy Social Security benefits.
That Charles Koch would promote and grow Social Security is at odds with his efforts and donations to politicians and think tanks to destroy Social Security, as our Koch Brothers Exposed campaign has proven.
In one letter cited by the Nation, Charles Koch's colleagues at another think tank, the Institute for Humane Studies, detail a loophole whereby the Austrian-born and ultra-laissez faire economist Friedrich Hayek could opt into Social Security. Soon after that letter was shipped off, Koch wrote a personal appeal extolling the benefits of Social Security to Hayek. He brought up Medicare too. Koch said the program would cover Hayek's medical needs even further.
He sends Hayek a Social Security brochure along with the note: "You may be interested in the information that we uncovered on the insurance and other benefits that would be available to you in this country... you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World."
The Koch brothers have donated $28.4 million to think thanks that aim to destroy a social safety net for middle class Americans, and Hayek pioneered that ideology in many ways. Through the Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers have found a new audience for Hayek's philosophy.
Not only could an Austrian-born crusader against social safety nets draw entitlements from American taxpayers, but according to Koch, Hayek could do so while residing (and paying taxes) in the U.S. or any nation on Earth. This is a dramatic leap of faith from Koch orthodoxy, where government and public service are problems that hamper the Koch brothers' $100 billion business.
As the Nation rightfully points out, when Texas Governor Rick Perry says Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," that sentiment stems directly from the Kochs, who through their wealth have given Hayek a resurgence of popularity through the brothers' echo chamber and billion dollar distortion machine.
The Nation wonders why Charles Koch didn't offer some of his own money to treat Hayek's health issues. The reason is because the Koch brothers are selfish. Indeed the Koch brothers, and how they spend their wealth, is transforming selfishness into an American virtue.
With the advent of the anti-stimulus, anti-big government Tea Party movement, he has enjoyed fresh affection — protesters quote him on their signs at rallies, and Ron Paul reports that people no longer go blank when he mentions Hayek’s name. (For those needing a primer on the differences between Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, who is enjoying fresh antipathy among the ranks of Tea Party supporters, there is a useful rap video.)
But critics like to point out that Tea Party supporters and libertarians are perfectly happy enjoying big government when it works for them. And now it appears that Hayek himself was encouraged to enjoy the benefits of government retirement and health care programs — by one of the country’s most prominent libertarians, the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.
According to a series of letters brought to light by The Nation , Mr. Koch wrote to Hayek in 1973 asking him to be a scholar in residence at the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian group founded by Mr. Koch. Hayek declined, saying that he recently had had surgery in Austria, which made him anxious about “the problems (and costs)” of falling ill far from home.
An associate of Mr. Koch’s wrote back to suggest that Hayek could take advantage of the generosity of Social Security if he came to this country (and noting that it would be prohibitive to secure him private health insurance here.) Mr. Koch followed up with another letter, enclosing a brochure on the benefits of Social Security, and noting that while in this country, Hayek (who had become eligible for government benefits because of his earlier employment at the University of Chicago) would also get free hospital care.
This was more than a decade after Hayek (who died in 1992) had written against Social Security in “The Constitution of Liberty,” calling such safety net programs the pathway to social and moral decay.
Mr. Koch went on to finance several institutions and organizations whose primary mission is to work against government spending and regulation. One, Americans for Prosperity, has given money to Tea Party groups, which surged in membership as they fought against legislation that would expand health care coverage to millions more Americans. (Americans for Prosperity sponsored a bus tour against the legislation.)
The Nation obtained the letters through the Hayek archives at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. “Nowhere,” the magazine notes, “do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It’s simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used.”
See Charles Koch Flip Flop on Social Security [VIDEO]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/see-charles-koch-flip-flo_b_988111.htmlCharles and David Koch built an distortion machine to do their dirty work for them. Through think tanks, academic research, political donations and conservative media, the Koch brothers have steamrolled Americans into believing things that are false and into supporting policies that benefit the Koch brothers' profits.
Social Security has long been among the brothers' favorite punching bags, but new reporting by the Nation shows Charles Koch praising, advocating -- practically begging an ultra-free market economist and mentor to participate and enjoy Social Security benefits.
That Charles Koch would promote and grow Social Security is at odds with his efforts and donations to politicians and think tanks to destroy Social Security, as our Koch Brothers Exposed campaign has proven.
In one letter cited by the Nation, Charles Koch's colleagues at another think tank, the Institute for Humane Studies, detail a loophole whereby the Austrian-born and ultra-laissez faire economist Friedrich Hayek could opt into Social Security. Soon after that letter was shipped off, Koch wrote a personal appeal extolling the benefits of Social Security to Hayek. He brought up Medicare too. Koch said the program would cover Hayek's medical needs even further.
He sends Hayek a Social Security brochure along with the note: "You may be interested in the information that we uncovered on the insurance and other benefits that would be available to you in this country... you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World."
The Koch brothers have donated $28.4 million to think thanks that aim to destroy a social safety net for middle class Americans, and Hayek pioneered that ideology in many ways. Through the Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers have found a new audience for Hayek's philosophy.
Not only could an Austrian-born crusader against social safety nets draw entitlements from American taxpayers, but according to Koch, Hayek could do so while residing (and paying taxes) in the U.S. or any nation on Earth. This is a dramatic leap of faith from Koch orthodoxy, where government and public service are problems that hamper the Koch brothers' $100 billion business.
As the Nation rightfully points out, when Texas Governor Rick Perry says Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme," that sentiment stems directly from the Kochs, who through their wealth have given Hayek a resurgence of popularity through the brothers' echo chamber and billion dollar distortion machine.
The Nation wonders why Charles Koch didn't offer some of his own money to treat Hayek's health issues. The reason is because the Koch brothers are selfish. Indeed the Koch brothers, and how they spend their wealth, is transforming selfishness into an American virtue.
29 June 2011
Social Security Poll: Cutting Benefits An Electoral Minefield 28JUN11
SOCIAL SECURITY must not be part of the budget talks to reduce the deficit or raise the federal debt ceiling. Social Security is not part of the debt problem, the greed of the wealthy and corporate America and the lack of moral courage of our "leadership" in D.C. is to blame. Democrats take note, the American people will not support you in 2012 if you cave in to the gop and tea-baggers who want to destroy the Social Security system. Politicians who turn their backs on the majority of the American people still struggling through this recession will be punished in the next election.
According to a set of new surveys conducted in several key swing states by groups in favor of protecting Social Security, making changes to the program as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget deficit is widely opposed by independents and voters who say they're undecided on whom to support in the 2012 election, the key constituents that politicians court during election season. The vast majority of voters -- including independents and Republicans -- said they'd prefer raising taxes on the wealthy to shore up Social Security, a position that has few adherents in Congress.
The new polls, from Social Security Works, The Alliance for Retired Americans and the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, show that 74 percent of likely 2012 voters in Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Colorado say they would oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the federal budget deficit. That opposition is fairly consistent across the five states, ranging from 71 percent opposed in Colorado to 78 percent opposed in Missouri.
In the new polls, the results that could be of greatest political import show that 72 percent of independents in the combined surveys and 77 percent of those who say they are undecided in 2012's U.S. Senate race (or the race for U.S. Congress in Colorado, where there are no Senate seats up for election next cycle) also oppose cuts to Social Security benefits.
Although respondents' views on Social Security seem to match better with those of Democratic lawmakers, the polls do contain some bad news for Democrats: Republicans hold an edge in questions about who would better handle Social Security. Combined respondents from the five states surveyed favored congressional Republicans over congressional Democrats on the issue by a 29 percent to 27 percent margin, and congressional Republicans over President Barack Obama by a 32 percent to 28 percent margin.
Republicans' edge on the issue appears to come largely from political independents, who favored Republicans in Congress over Democrats in Congress by a 4 percentage point margin and Republicans in Congress over the president by a 5 percentage point margin. Similarly, undecided voters in their states' contests for U.S. Senate (or for the U.S. House, in the case of Colorado voters) gave Republicans a 3 percentage point advantage over Obama, though they favored Republicans over Democrats in Congress by only a 1 percentage point margin, well within the survey's margin of error.
How is it that voters don't want Social Security cuts but simultaneously think that the program will be better protected by Republicans, who publicly insist on such cuts? Part of the answer likely lies with Republican-leaning independents in the poll, who can be counted on to support Republicans in general, despite the specific question at hand.
According to the Pew Research Center's recently released Political Typology Report, which analyzed characteristics of like-minded groups across the political spectrum, one key group that largely identifies as independents but typically leans toward the Republican Party, dubbed the Disaffecteds, was especially opposed to making changes to Social Security and Medicare as a way to reduce the budget deficit. Only 15 percent of Disaffecteds said they would favor cutting entitlements rather than cutting defense spending or other domestic programs, the lowest of any group analyzed by Pew Research -- including groups comprised mainly of Democrats.
Democratic leaders in Congress have expressed an openness to Social Security cuts, although it is unclear whether that is influencing how much independents trust Democrats on the issue, or whether Americans are even aware of the particulars of politicians' positions on the issue. In addition, other polls have found greater trust for Democrats on managing the program, suggesting that some of those who said they were undecided on the new polls might lean towards supporting Democrats on Social Security if pressed.
Respondents to the new polls were largely opposed to several more specific changes to the Social Security program. Fifty-nine percent opposed raising the retirement age to 69 years old, 57 percent opposed changing the formula to reduce cost of living benefits for beneficiaries and 60 percent opposed means-testing to reduce benefits for those making more than $60,000 a year. Opposition to the proposal varies slightly by state, but does not drop below 55 percent for any of these proposals in any of the states polled.
On the other hand, the polls found broad agreement with a proposal to apply the Social Security tax to annual wages above the current cut off of $106,800 -- 70 percent of combined respondents supported that change. The majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters also favored lifting the taxable amount.
This preference for raising taxes over cutting Social Security benefits is confirmed by other national polls. A May poll by the Pew Research Center found 59 percent of adult respondents disapproved of plans to raise the age when people can begin receiving retirement benefits, while 67 percent approved of making more of high-earners' income subject to the payroll tax. Fifty-four percent of respondents to that poll said they would oppose reducing Social Security benefits for seniors with higher incomes.
However, a March Washington Post/ABC News poll found adult respondents opposed to decreasing the rate at which Social Security benefits increase by a narrower margin (3 percentage points) than the new polls.
The new polls also found support for a proposal not to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will expire in 2012 and instead re-purpose the revenue generated to pay for the Social Security program. That result is particularly unsurprising since most Americans supported ending those cuts the last time they were extended, even when the funds generated would not be used to pay for the popular Social Security program.
While these surveys were sponsored by an interest group opposed to reductions in Social Security benefits, the broad conclusions they reached are similar to other national polls. For example, an AP/GfK poll conducted in May found that 59 percent of U.S. adults said that the budget could be balanced without cutting Social Security, while 39 percent said that Social Security would need to be cut. A USA Today/Gallup poll in April found that 65 percent of adults were worried that Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan would cut Social Security too much.
The new polls were conducted by the Democratic firm Lake Research Partners. Respondents were selected from a voter list. In total, the surveys interviewed 2,694 respondents. The combined results for the surveys have a margin of error of 1.9 percentage points.
The surveys in Colorado, Florida, and Missouri each had about 500 respondents and margins of error of 4.4 percentage points. The Minnesota survey had 584 respondents and a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points, and the Virginia survey had 603 respondents and a margin of error of 4 percent.
According to a set of new surveys conducted in several key swing states by groups in favor of protecting Social Security, making changes to the program as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget deficit is widely opposed by independents and voters who say they're undecided on whom to support in the 2012 election, the key constituents that politicians court during election season. The vast majority of voters -- including independents and Republicans -- said they'd prefer raising taxes on the wealthy to shore up Social Security, a position that has few adherents in Congress.
The new polls, from Social Security Works, The Alliance for Retired Americans and the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, show that 74 percent of likely 2012 voters in Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Colorado say they would oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the federal budget deficit. That opposition is fairly consistent across the five states, ranging from 71 percent opposed in Colorado to 78 percent opposed in Missouri.
In the new polls, the results that could be of greatest political import show that 72 percent of independents in the combined surveys and 77 percent of those who say they are undecided in 2012's U.S. Senate race (or the race for U.S. Congress in Colorado, where there are no Senate seats up for election next cycle) also oppose cuts to Social Security benefits.
Although respondents' views on Social Security seem to match better with those of Democratic lawmakers, the polls do contain some bad news for Democrats: Republicans hold an edge in questions about who would better handle Social Security. Combined respondents from the five states surveyed favored congressional Republicans over congressional Democrats on the issue by a 29 percent to 27 percent margin, and congressional Republicans over President Barack Obama by a 32 percent to 28 percent margin.
Republicans' edge on the issue appears to come largely from political independents, who favored Republicans in Congress over Democrats in Congress by a 4 percentage point margin and Republicans in Congress over the president by a 5 percentage point margin. Similarly, undecided voters in their states' contests for U.S. Senate (or for the U.S. House, in the case of Colorado voters) gave Republicans a 3 percentage point advantage over Obama, though they favored Republicans over Democrats in Congress by only a 1 percentage point margin, well within the survey's margin of error.
How is it that voters don't want Social Security cuts but simultaneously think that the program will be better protected by Republicans, who publicly insist on such cuts? Part of the answer likely lies with Republican-leaning independents in the poll, who can be counted on to support Republicans in general, despite the specific question at hand.
According to the Pew Research Center's recently released Political Typology Report, which analyzed characteristics of like-minded groups across the political spectrum, one key group that largely identifies as independents but typically leans toward the Republican Party, dubbed the Disaffecteds, was especially opposed to making changes to Social Security and Medicare as a way to reduce the budget deficit. Only 15 percent of Disaffecteds said they would favor cutting entitlements rather than cutting defense spending or other domestic programs, the lowest of any group analyzed by Pew Research -- including groups comprised mainly of Democrats.
Democratic leaders in Congress have expressed an openness to Social Security cuts, although it is unclear whether that is influencing how much independents trust Democrats on the issue, or whether Americans are even aware of the particulars of politicians' positions on the issue. In addition, other polls have found greater trust for Democrats on managing the program, suggesting that some of those who said they were undecided on the new polls might lean towards supporting Democrats on Social Security if pressed.
Respondents to the new polls were largely opposed to several more specific changes to the Social Security program. Fifty-nine percent opposed raising the retirement age to 69 years old, 57 percent opposed changing the formula to reduce cost of living benefits for beneficiaries and 60 percent opposed means-testing to reduce benefits for those making more than $60,000 a year. Opposition to the proposal varies slightly by state, but does not drop below 55 percent for any of these proposals in any of the states polled.
On the other hand, the polls found broad agreement with a proposal to apply the Social Security tax to annual wages above the current cut off of $106,800 -- 70 percent of combined respondents supported that change. The majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters also favored lifting the taxable amount.
This preference for raising taxes over cutting Social Security benefits is confirmed by other national polls. A May poll by the Pew Research Center found 59 percent of adult respondents disapproved of plans to raise the age when people can begin receiving retirement benefits, while 67 percent approved of making more of high-earners' income subject to the payroll tax. Fifty-four percent of respondents to that poll said they would oppose reducing Social Security benefits for seniors with higher incomes.
However, a March Washington Post/ABC News poll found adult respondents opposed to decreasing the rate at which Social Security benefits increase by a narrower margin (3 percentage points) than the new polls.
The new polls also found support for a proposal not to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will expire in 2012 and instead re-purpose the revenue generated to pay for the Social Security program. That result is particularly unsurprising since most Americans supported ending those cuts the last time they were extended, even when the funds generated would not be used to pay for the popular Social Security program.
While these surveys were sponsored by an interest group opposed to reductions in Social Security benefits, the broad conclusions they reached are similar to other national polls. For example, an AP/GfK poll conducted in May found that 59 percent of U.S. adults said that the budget could be balanced without cutting Social Security, while 39 percent said that Social Security would need to be cut. A USA Today/Gallup poll in April found that 65 percent of adults were worried that Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan would cut Social Security too much.
The new polls were conducted by the Democratic firm Lake Research Partners. Respondents were selected from a voter list. In total, the surveys interviewed 2,694 respondents. The combined results for the surveys have a margin of error of 1.9 percentage points.
The surveys in Colorado, Florida, and Missouri each had about 500 respondents and margins of error of 4.4 percentage points. The Minnesota survey had 584 respondents and a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points, and the Virginia survey had 603 respondents and a margin of error of 4 percent.
14 May 2011
How Raising The Retirement Age Screws the Poor 13MAI11
BOHICA AMERICA!!!! Here's what the tea-baggers and gop have planned for the poor, working class and middle class....from Mother Jones....
I've never been a fan of raising the Social Security retirement age. It's a blunt instrument mainly favored by journalists and policymakers who don't plan to retire at age 65 anyway and figure that asking people to work a little bit longer than they used to is no big deal. But people who don't have white collar jobs quite plainly don't feel the same way about it, as the skyrocketing number of people who retire early at age 62 demonstrates. We've already raised the full retirement age to 67 (this was part of the 1983 Social Security deal put in place by the Greenspan Commission), and I think there are plenty of better ways of bringing Social Security into balance than by raising it yet again.
Aaron Carroll demonstrates this dramatically with the chart below, taken from a paper by Hilary Waldren. As you can see, life expectancy in the top half of the income distribution has indeed risen dramatically over the past few decades. But in the bottom half of the income distribution, it's barely risen at all.
I want to make it crystal clear what this means, using further data from Waldren's paper combined with the increase in
retirement age that's already scheduled to take effect. This is for workers in the bottom half of the income distribution:
Keep this firmly in mind whenever someone talks about how life expectancies have skyrocketed and we can't afford long, leisurely retirements anymore. If you're fairly well off and work at a white collar job, there's something to this. If you're not, it's bunk.
If you want to use rising life expectancy as an argument for means testing Social Security, or perhaps for reducing benefits for high earners, the data here gives you some good ammunition. Personally, I'm not sure this is the best way of tackling Social Security solvency either, but it's certainly an arguable point. Maybe modest means testing should be part of a bigger solution.
But raising the retirement age? Go tell that to a clerk or a factory worker. They won't be quite as thrilled about this as people who write newspaper columns for a living, and they have pretty good reason not to be. It's a lousy idea.
1You can still take early retirement at age 62 no matter what year you retire, but you get reduced benefits — and those benefits are being gradually reduced even further as the full retirement age goes up. Actuarially, early retirement doesn't change a thing. If you're in the bottom half of the income distribution, the total expected payout of your Social Security benefits will have risen by one month's worth between 1977 and 2025 no matter what age you choose to retire.
Front page image: Celine Nadeau
Aaron Carroll demonstrates this dramatically with the chart below, taken from a paper by Hilary Waldren. As you can see, life expectancy in the top half of the income distribution has indeed risen dramatically over the past few decades. But in the bottom half of the income distribution, it's barely risen at all.
I want to make it crystal clear what this means, using further data from Waldren's paper combined with the increase in
retirement age that's already scheduled to take effect. This is for workers in the bottom half of the income distribution:- If you retired in 1977 at age 65, your life expectancy was 14.8 years.
- If you retired in 2006 at age 65 years and 8 months, your life expectancy was 15.4 years.
- Using a simple linear extrapolation, if you retire in 2025 at age 67, your life expectancy will be 14.9 years.
Keep this firmly in mind whenever someone talks about how life expectancies have skyrocketed and we can't afford long, leisurely retirements anymore. If you're fairly well off and work at a white collar job, there's something to this. If you're not, it's bunk.
If you want to use rising life expectancy as an argument for means testing Social Security, or perhaps for reducing benefits for high earners, the data here gives you some good ammunition. Personally, I'm not sure this is the best way of tackling Social Security solvency either, but it's certainly an arguable point. Maybe modest means testing should be part of a bigger solution.
But raising the retirement age? Go tell that to a clerk or a factory worker. They won't be quite as thrilled about this as people who write newspaper columns for a living, and they have pretty good reason not to be. It's a lousy idea.
1You can still take early retirement at age 62 no matter what year you retire, but you get reduced benefits — and those benefits are being gradually reduced even further as the full retirement age goes up. Actuarially, early retirement doesn't change a thing. If you're in the bottom half of the income distribution, the total expected payout of your Social Security benefits will have risen by one month's worth between 1977 and 2025 no matter what age you choose to retire.
Front page image: Celine Nadeau
27 January 2011
Boehner: I ‘made a mistake’ by advocating raising the retirement age from THE RAW STORY 27jJAN11
REP john boehner (r OH) admits he made a mistake saying the retirement age should be raised. DUH! There is one thing the federal government needs to keep their hands off and it is Social Security. The program is solvent, it does not contribute to the national deficit, and anyone who says it does is a liar. The retirement age doesn't need to be raised, and Social Security payments do not need to be cut. Corporate America does need to reconsider their national responsibility and instead of concentrating solely on increasing profits and paying executives obscene bonuses, they should be investing in the economy and creating jobs which will increase Social Security taxes collected, further strengthening the Social Security program. The decrease in individual Social Security payroll taxes as part of the deficit sellout, er..."compromise" last year is a mistake that will cause a second year of the program taking in less than it pays out and so give a propaganda line on the frailty of the program to those who's ultimate goal is to eliminate the Social Security safety net. Let's see the republican House members submit and pass legislation eliminating their government sponsored pension plan BEFORE doing anything to Social Security. Unfortunately, their hypocrisy on this issue will prevent this from ever happening. They, like the greedy executives of the corporations, banks and financial institutions bailed out by the American taxpayers while still receiving their huge bonuses, feel they are entitled to it.
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) walked back his prior remarks that Social Security benefits should be cut by raising the retirement age, but added that the idea still "ought to be on the table."
"I made a mistake when I did that because I think having the conversation about how big the problem is is the first step," Boehner told CNN's Parker/Spitzer Wednesday night. "And once the American people understand how big the problem is, then you can begin to outline an array of possible solutions."
Boehner, the most powerful Republican in Washington, made news last summer when he championed raising the retirement age from 65 to 70 for workers not retiring for another 20 years.
Although party leaders largely stayed away from the issue in the run-up to the November midterm elections, the GOP has slowly begun to coalesce this year around a drive to cut Social Security.
The top Republicans on the House and Senate budget committees, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and recently Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), have championed plans that would largely privatize Social Security. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) also backed the idea last Sunday.Ryan, the author of the plan, was chosen by Republican leaders to give the party's rebuttal to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night.
But even as Democrats hammer away at Republicans on the issue, eager to cast them as out-of-touch with average Americans, the new House speaker didn't rule out increases to the retirement age as one way of cutting Social Security.
"But when you look at life expectancy in America today and you look at the Social Security system, we're all living far longer than anyone had ever anticipated and the result of these big demographic changes is having a disastrous effect on the Social Security program," Boehner said Wednesday.
"And so raising the retirement age or considering it is something that ought to be on the table."
Although the program's payouts did exceed revenues for the first time last year, the Social Security Trust Fund had a surplus of $2.6 trillion and was expected to remain solvent in its current form until 2037, according to its 2010 trustees report.
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) walked back his prior remarks that Social Security benefits should be cut by raising the retirement age, but added that the idea still "ought to be on the table."
"I made a mistake when I did that because I think having the conversation about how big the problem is is the first step," Boehner told CNN's Parker/Spitzer Wednesday night. "And once the American people understand how big the problem is, then you can begin to outline an array of possible solutions."
Boehner, the most powerful Republican in Washington, made news last summer when he championed raising the retirement age from 65 to 70 for workers not retiring for another 20 years.
Although party leaders largely stayed away from the issue in the run-up to the November midterm elections, the GOP has slowly begun to coalesce this year around a drive to cut Social Security.
The top Republicans on the House and Senate budget committees, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and recently Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), have championed plans that would largely privatize Social Security. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) also backed the idea last Sunday.Ryan, the author of the plan, was chosen by Republican leaders to give the party's rebuttal to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night.
But even as Democrats hammer away at Republicans on the issue, eager to cast them as out-of-touch with average Americans, the new House speaker didn't rule out increases to the retirement age as one way of cutting Social Security.
"But when you look at life expectancy in America today and you look at the Social Security system, we're all living far longer than anyone had ever anticipated and the result of these big demographic changes is having a disastrous effect on the Social Security program," Boehner said Wednesday.
"And so raising the retirement age or considering it is something that ought to be on the table."
Although the program's payouts did exceed revenues for the first time last year, the Social Security Trust Fund had a surplus of $2.6 trillion and was expected to remain solvent in its current form until 2037, according to its 2010 trustees report.
10 November 2010
Three Good Ideas And Three Not So Good Ideas From The Chairmen Of The Debt Commission from THINKPROGRESS 10NOV10
WELL it is no surprise the deficit commission, made up of millionaires, wants to cut the social programs like veteran's health care, education, health and science research, consumer product, food and drug safety, and law enforcement, that we all depend on, especially those of us who are not wealthy. So the battle begins, and it may be a long, dragged out battle, but we can not tire and give in. We need to stand together and fight for Social Security until we are victorious. We can win this battle, don't believe anyone who says we can't. This is from Think Progress, and is followed by a call to action from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (click the link to participate in the Citizens Letter), 100 U.S. Representatives and so far over 39000 regular citizens have signed on, and the letter is just one day old!
Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Earlier today, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission released their draft proposal (a.k.a. chairmen’s mark) to reduce the deficit. This is not the final report of the fiscal commission, but it is likely going to be the starting point for the remainder of the panel’s discussions. There’s a lot in there, but let’s highlight three good ideas and three bad ideas. Here are the good ideas:
BREAKING: The "bipartisan" deficit reduction commission -- appointed by President Obama and led by millionaires -- just made their ideas public. And they are ridiculous.
They recommend to Congress cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age. (Shockingly, the commission of millionaires didn't focus on raising taxes on the wealthy.)
We need to respond fast to make sure this goes nowhere. House Progressive Caucus Chair Raul Grijalva (who we just helped re-elect) has boldly organized over 100 of his colleagues to fight this proposal.
We need to show they have grassroots support. Can you join over 31,000 others in being a "citizen signer" of Grijalva's letter? Click here.
Then, share with others -- including on Facebook or Twitter.
We'll inform Grijalva of our progress, so he can work with us to inform the media of this grassroots support.
Just today, Talking Points Memo reported on a poll we commissioned asking voters their preference on how to reduce the deficit:
Help House progressives declare loudly: Cutting Social Security is simply not an option. Click to be a "citizen signer" of Grijalva's letter -- then share this email with others.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Stephanie Taylor, Julia Rosen, Jason Rosenbaum, Forrest Brown, and the PCCC team
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. We've received over 60,246 small-dollar donations. Can you help us hit 65,000?
Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Associate Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Debt commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson
– Defense Cuts: The chairmen’s mark includes about $100 billion in what they call “illustrative” cuts to military spending. These cuts would be used to meet an overall discretionary target of about $174 billon in savings compared to the president’s budget. Their suggested cuts are similar to the Center for American Progress’ own suggestions, and it’s nice to see them take seriously the fact that defense cuts have to be a part of the solution.As for the bad ones:
– Agriculture Subsidy Reductions: The proposal includes about $3 billion a year in cuts to agriculture subsidies. This is a big step in the right direction. Experts from across the political spectrum have repeatedly called for these subsidies to be substantially reduced. Even President Bush thought so. If we’re going to cut wasteful or unnecessary spending, this is the place to start.
– Revenue: The chairmen’s mark has revenue going to 19.3 percent of GDP in 2015 and then eventually up to 21 percent of GDP. Again, this is an important step in the right direction. The president’s budget plan calls for 19 percent of GDP in 2015, and that assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the richest two percent, along with a host of other revenue raisers. That the chairmen’s proposal results in slightly higher revenues for 2015 is, at the least, an admission that revenue must be part of the solution. I think they’re still a little low on the revenue side of things, but it’s a start.
– Draconian Cuts To Services And Programs: The plan seems to suggest about one dollar in non-defense discretionary cuts for every dollar in defense cuts. I can understand the political logic of this, but substantively it’s a really bad idea. Non-defense discretionary dollars go to pay for some very crucial things like veteran’s health care, education, science and health research, consumer product, food and drug safety, and law enforcement. $100 billion in cuts represents a greater than 15 percent reduction on all these things. Unlike the defense cuts – which could be implemented without harming national security – this level of reduction to such a wide array of public services would really hurt.
– Raising The Social Security Retirement Age: This is a popular idea in certain Washington circles, but as ThinkProgress’ Matthew Yglesias says, it is “basically the very most regressive way to reduce entitlement spending.” There are better ways to bring Social Security into 75 year actuarial balance than asking people to work longer.
– Revenue: It’s good that the chairmen recognize the need for more revenue. It’s bad that they don’t really tell us how they plan to get it. Instead they say they’ll get $80 billion from tax reform, and then offer three visions of what that reform might look like. Now this is just their initial proposal, and I’m sure it’ll get fleshed out more in the coming weeks, but for now, while their spending cuts are pretty specific, their revenue plan is frustratingly muddied.
 |
BREAKING: The "bipartisan" deficit reduction commission -- appointed by President Obama and led by millionaires -- just made their ideas public. And they are ridiculous.
They recommend to Congress cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age. (Shockingly, the commission of millionaires didn't focus on raising taxes on the wealthy.)
We need to respond fast to make sure this goes nowhere. House Progressive Caucus Chair Raul Grijalva (who we just helped re-elect) has boldly organized over 100 of his colleagues to fight this proposal.
We need to show they have grassroots support. Can you join over 31,000 others in being a "citizen signer" of Grijalva's letter? Click here.
Then, share with others -- including on Facebook or Twitter.
We'll inform Grijalva of our progress, so he can work with us to inform the media of this grassroots support.
Just today, Talking Points Memo reported on a poll we commissioned asking voters their preference on how to reduce the deficit:
- 43% say raise taxes on the wealthy
- 22% say cut the huge military budget
- Only 12% say cut Social Security
Help House progressives declare loudly: Cutting Social Security is simply not an option. Click to be a "citizen signer" of Grijalva's letter -- then share this email with others.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Stephanie Taylor, Julia Rosen, Jason Rosenbaum, Forrest Brown, and the PCCC team
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. We've received over 60,246 small-dollar donations. Can you help us hit 65,000?
Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
06 November 2010
Rick Perry Proposes Letting States Opt Out of Social Security from THINKPROGRESS 6NOV10
MORE TEA-BAGGER right wing fanatical fiscal policy cloaked in untruths and deception to deceive the public on Social Security......read the whole article from ThinkProgress....
Appearing on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer this past week, occasionally secessionist Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) proposed allowing states to opt-out of Social Security:
Perry should learn a little history before he raises up the 1981 experiment as a model for Social Security reform. In that experiment, three Texas counties “decided to opt out of Social Security and instead to provide their public employees with a system of privatized accounts.” But this system left participants worse off than they would have been under Social Security.
Moreover, Perry’s proposal closely resembles Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe “A Noun, a Verb and Unconstitutional” Miller’s economically impossible plan for a state takeover of Social Security and Medicare. A workable plan to allow states to opt out of Social Security would require draconian provisions, such as a mandate that everyone must retire in the same state that they worked and paid taxes in. Otherwise, workers who are too young to receive Social Security benefits would move to an opt-out state to avoid paying Social Security taxes — and then promptly move to a state with Social Security benefits the moment they became eligible. Eventually, the entire system would collapse under the weight of too many Social Security beneficiaries who had not paid into the system.
And this isn’t even the first time this week that Perry released a completely unworkable idea whose only virtue is that it will poll well with the Tea Party. Earlier this week, Perry released excerpts from his forthcoming book that attack the Constitution for allowing a national income tax and for requiring senators to be chosen through a radical process known as an “election.”
The Texas Privatization Plan 27APR05
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=728
In his Social Security roundtable yesterday, President Bush stated, “If you’ve got a good idea, bring it forward. I don’t care if it’s a Republican idea, or a Democrat idea, independent idea, Texas idea, any kind of idea, bring it forward.” Well, it seems that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) took the president up on the “Texas idea” suggestion. The senator’s office has released a report looking at the 1981 Texas plan. In 1981, three Texas counties “decided to opt out of Social Security and instead to provide their public employees with a system of privatized accounts.” The analysis done by Boxer’s office and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service “compares two sets of families in three different income brackets [and] shows what happens to their retirement in 2005 under Social Security and under the Texas plan.” The conclusion:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99031.pdf
AND FROM WIKIPEDIA
However, a more fundamental flaw in this criticism is the fact that Social Security is not analogous to a retirement investment plan because it is an insurance program, not an investment account. Social Security benefits can exceed market returns of retirement investments under some circumstances, because as an insurance program it pays benefits not only for retirement, but for disability, as well as paying survivors and dependents (see FICA above), and this coverage begins shortly after a worker starts contributing. It can also be argued that part of Social Security's "return" is not only benefits actually paid, but the coverage against risk a worker and their family has in the event of loss of income from retirement, disability and death, even if disability and death occur at a relatively young age. It is, however, legitimate to compare the return on the "risk pool of funds" garnered by this government-run insurance program with the return on the "risk pool of funds" garnered by a for-profit commercial insurance company. Commercial insurance companies must be able to cover substantially the same types of extra payouts, particularly where the beneficiary lives longer than expected, but they do not have the taxing power or relatively unlimited borrowing power of the government, and so the insurance companies must be capable of earning better returns on the pooled monies than has the government done historically.
Appearing on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer this past week, occasionally secessionist Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) proposed allowing states to opt-out of Social Security:
“Here’s what I think would be a very wise thing,” he began. “In 1981, Matagorda, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties all opted out of the Social Security program for their employees. Today, their program is very, very well-funded and there is no question about whether it’s going to be funded in the out years. It’s there. That’s an option out there.”Watch it: (NEED TO CLICK THE HEADER TO GO TO ARTICLE ON THINKPROGRESS TO SEE THE VIDEO)
“So, you want to let people opt out?” responded Spitzer.
“I think, let the states decide if that’s what’s best for their cities,” Perry replied.
“So the states will let people opt out of Social Security?” Spitzer asked
“They should,” the recently reelected Texas governor said.
Perry should learn a little history before he raises up the 1981 experiment as a model for Social Security reform. In that experiment, three Texas counties “decided to opt out of Social Security and instead to provide their public employees with a system of privatized accounts.” But this system left participants worse off than they would have been under Social Security.
Moreover, Perry’s proposal closely resembles Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe “A Noun, a Verb and Unconstitutional” Miller’s economically impossible plan for a state takeover of Social Security and Medicare. A workable plan to allow states to opt out of Social Security would require draconian provisions, such as a mandate that everyone must retire in the same state that they worked and paid taxes in. Otherwise, workers who are too young to receive Social Security benefits would move to an opt-out state to avoid paying Social Security taxes — and then promptly move to a state with Social Security benefits the moment they became eligible. Eventually, the entire system would collapse under the weight of too many Social Security beneficiaries who had not paid into the system.
And this isn’t even the first time this week that Perry released a completely unworkable idea whose only virtue is that it will poll well with the Tea Party. Earlier this week, Perry released excerpts from his forthcoming book that attack the Constitution for allowing a national income tax and for requiring senators to be chosen through a radical process known as an “election.”
The Texas Privatization Plan 27APR05
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=728
In his Social Security roundtable yesterday, President Bush stated, “If you’ve got a good idea, bring it forward. I don’t care if it’s a Republican idea, or a Democrat idea, independent idea, Texas idea, any kind of idea, bring it forward.” Well, it seems that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) took the president up on the “Texas idea” suggestion. The senator’s office has released a report looking at the 1981 Texas plan. In 1981, three Texas counties “decided to opt out of Social Security and instead to provide their public employees with a system of privatized accounts.” The analysis done by Boxer’s office and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service “compares two sets of families in three different income brackets [and] shows what happens to their retirement in 2005 under Social Security and under the Texas plan.” The conclusion:
By examining the actual system in place in Texas, this study shows that Americans are worse off with privatized accounts — not in theory, but in reality.HERE IS THE LINK TO THE GAO REPORT FROM 1999 ON THE TEXAS EXPERIMENT, NOTE THE REPORT WAS DONE BEFORE THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN OF 2008
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99031.pdf
AND FROM WIKIPEDIA
Claim that it gives a low rate of return
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29
Critics of Social Security [120] claim that it gives a low rate of return, compared to what is obtained through private retirement accounts. For example, critics point out [120] that under the Social Security laws as they existed at that time, several thousand employees of Galveston County, Texas were allowed to opt out of the Social Security program in the early 1980s, and have their money placed in a private retirement plan instead. While employees who earned $50,000 per year would have collected $1,302 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $6,843 per month. While employees who earned $20,000 per year would have collected $775 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $2,740 per month, at interest rates prevailing in 1996.[120] While some advocates of privatization of Social Security point to the Galveston pension plan as a model for Social Security reform, critics point to a GAO report to the House Ways and Means Committee, which indicates that, for low and middle income employees, particularly those with shorter work histories, the outcome may be less favorable. The use of anecdotal returns from one investment or another can also be misleading. Indeed, the substantial risk from relying on private investment instruments was highlighted with the massive losses suffered to both private and public pension plans in the economic collapse beginning in 2007.However, a more fundamental flaw in this criticism is the fact that Social Security is not analogous to a retirement investment plan because it is an insurance program, not an investment account. Social Security benefits can exceed market returns of retirement investments under some circumstances, because as an insurance program it pays benefits not only for retirement, but for disability, as well as paying survivors and dependents (see FICA above), and this coverage begins shortly after a worker starts contributing. It can also be argued that part of Social Security's "return" is not only benefits actually paid, but the coverage against risk a worker and their family has in the event of loss of income from retirement, disability and death, even if disability and death occur at a relatively young age. It is, however, legitimate to compare the return on the "risk pool of funds" garnered by this government-run insurance program with the return on the "risk pool of funds" garnered by a for-profit commercial insurance company. Commercial insurance companies must be able to cover substantially the same types of extra payouts, particularly where the beneficiary lives longer than expected, but they do not have the taxing power or relatively unlimited borrowing power of the government, and so the insurance companies must be capable of earning better returns on the pooled monies than has the government done historically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)