It's common knowledge that Social Security is "the third rail" of American politics, but this year it is doubly true for youth organizations. We're in the middle of what may be the most important election in our lifetime and Democrats stand a damn good chance of not only winning the Presidency, but of capturing sizable majorities in both chambers of Congress that could virtually guarantee a progressive policy reformation not seen since the New Deal or the Great Society.

In election after election, young voters are choosing Democratic candidates over Republicans by large margins. On issue after issue, young voters hold progressive stands on how to solve the problems that affect our nation. Except on the issue of Social Security.

A recent report by the Center for American Progress and Demos found that 74 percent of Millennials are supportive of plans to privatize social security compared to 41 percent of adults over 60. That's the bad news. The good news is that this is less about their ideology than their particular stage of life. It's common for younger voters to feel less secure about Social Security (and their prospects for receiving it when they retire), and thus be open to more ideas as to how best we can "fix" the perceived problem.

Here's some more good news: according to that same report, compared with previous generations, Millennials are more open to the government spending money to stabilize Social Security. It's not that Millennials aren't progressive on Social Security - at this point they aren't anything except looking for an answer, and not even very hard at that. According to a February Rock the Vote poll (pdf), only 4 percent of Millennials rank Social Security as the most important issue that will determine how they cast their ballot.

Nevertheless, it is the one sole chink in the armor that conservatives can exploit if they want to make inroads among youth. John McCain is already out on the stump exploiting the issue, speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of privatizing Social Security. You can bet that there will be even more attempts by Republicans to scare young voters about the program's long-term fiscal stability as we get closer to the election.

That's why it's disheartening to see youth organizations like Mobilize.org, Rock the Vote, and the Roosevelt Institution engaging conservatives on the issue and providing ideological cover to conservative groups who want to privatize the social safety net that has served us so well for so long.

On Monday, these and other youth organizers, along with a number of conservative and "nonpartisan" policy types, convened in Washington for the Youth Entitlement Summit. The name alone--entitlement--should ring alarm bells as a conservative frame, as should the leading sponsor organization, Americans for Generational Equality (AGE)--a conservative outfit that promotes "intergenerational strife" and argues for the privatization of Social Security. Founded in 1986, it closed up shop in 1990 only to reopen it's doors - and PR machine - in 2006.

The conference claims "non partisanship," and a spirited discussion of the issues, but if that is really true, why are there no progressive economists like Jared Bernstein or Dean Baker addressing the attendees? Why are the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute nowhere to be seen in the list of partners? Instead, the agenda boasts scholars from the Brookings, Heritage and Hoover foundations and the panels all take on the false frame of "X program in crisis." Hardly a fair and balanced representation of the issues.

We're on the verge of the first progressive majority in decades. Social Security's problems--to the extent that it has any--are minor at best and decades in the future. There is no rush to fix this "problem," and if we can all wait another six months, the solution we find is likely to be much better for all Americans. Collaborating with conservative idealogues, even sitting at the table with them at this point is pointless--to the coming electoral wave and Democratic support among young voters, and to setting the agenda when we have a Democratic government in 2009.

Youth organizers beware! Stay off the third rail of politics and don't play the conservative game. We have nothing to gain by engaging them on this issue until AFTER the November election.

Comments (75)

1. SS problems are not "minor". It needs to be addressed in a forthright manner, sooner rather than later. Privatization is no more an answer than keeping our collective head in the sand. As we can see with the latest "private investment" collapse in the mortgage industry, having private funds is no guarantee of return.

   Taxes on somebody are going to have to go up some, benefits may have to be reduced or delayed for some in order for the whole thing to continue to be solvent into the 2050's and beyond. SS is a program most people want to keep, let us not let the cons get ahold of it and turn it into a giant Enron collapse.

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/16/2008 @ 11:21pm

2. Social Security is neither social nor secure.

   Posted by abell12ct at 06/17/2008 @ 01:07am

3. Gee, Mr Connery....you mean the "youth vote" isn't always "progressive"?!!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 06/17/2008 @ 03:24am

4. I have to agree with you Crab. If we privatized social security and the company collapses it's going to be just like any other company where your money all of a sudden disappears. Except this will be a large portion of Americans money that disappears. Plus your telling me you want to put money into Social Security which will end up being like insurance. Which means these companies will end up running much like insurance companies. That doesn't bode well for anyone.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 03:58am

5. Social Security is neither social nor secure.

   Posted by abell12ct at 06/17/2008

   What does the not social part even mean? I get the not secure. But everyone who contributes to social security gets a piece of the pie so how is it not social?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 03:59am

6. Gee, Mr Connery....you mean the "youth vote" isn't always "progressive"?!!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 06/17/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

   You're pathetic, you really are. As I've pointed out ad nausem, unlike the straw men you create in your fevered little mind - you're like a neo-con cultural warrior that just can't let go of the bad ol' 60's and 70's - Mr. Connery has not argued that young voters are always progressives. Please feel free to quote directly from his writings to refute this point, you lying little weasel.

   Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 12:34pm

7. Progressive analyses of the "crisis" in social security, including by Doug Henwood, have shown that the crisis is a creation of Wall Street, the libertarian and right-wing think tank machine and absolutley preposterous, not to mention contradictory, economic forecasts by the trustees of the system. The only necessary solution to any problems with the system, and it is primarilly a problem of fairness, is to eliminate completely the cap on income that is eligible for FICA taxes. In other words, rather than taxing Bill Gates or the CEO of Comcast for only the first $96,000 or so of his income for social security, etc., tax them for the whole shebang, whether it's $12 million or $213 million.

   Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 12:41pm

8. The only problems with Social Security are (a) the unfairness of its taxation (Eliminate the income cap! Tax Bill Gates and Co. not just for their first $100,000 of income, but for ALL of their income!!); (b) the raiding of the SS Trust Fund by the government, which a Democratic Congress should absolutely put a stop to, whether Obama wants to do it or not; (c) a phony "crisis" whipped up by Wall Street, libertarian and conservative think tanks and publications, a stupid and gullible press corps and, (d) perhaps not so shockingly, Social Security trustees who've painted the bleakest possible future for the program by using absolutely preposterous, not to mention internally contradictory, economic projections.

   Doug Henwood and other progressive economists and journalists have analyzed the hell out of both the program, its problems and the "crisis" and I urge folks to search out their work.

   Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 12:53pm

9. Hopefully, the youth who get taxed can see that they will have to pay a larger share of their incomes to cover SS in the future(ponzi scheme)..combined with more gas taxes, higher income taxes as they use S- corps and are declared rich, carbon taxes, more capital gains taxes and higher price for gas as the oil companies pass on their "Windfall" taxes..and as they add up the total taxes and compare it to their income they are allowed to keep, will then see that SS , along with all the other govt programs are no longer viable and they do not want to pay 60% plus of their checks to the govt...so, in effect, they become "corrupted" by conservatives to the point they may want to keep their pay checks.

   God for bid the conservatives wake them up to the fact that SS fund pays about 1% while the stock market over time earns 100's of times the return compared to the govt...

   I know my 17 year old is already corrupted and wants to know why he has to pay so much across the board...

   ...he is also corrupted enough to not distinquish the SS from the Medicare from the income tax and in doing so, believes he is sending the biggest portion of his check to Washington...and then he looks at the state tax system...and I also corrupted him to the property tax, fishing tax, tire tax, sales tax, inheritance tax...

   and he is now thoroughly corrupted to actualy examine to see if he is getting his moneys worth or if he is paying his fair share...

   He believes he is getting screwed....and he is...

   ..so, I guess he needs to go back to public school where they can re educate him into thinking he is getting a good deal...how to surrender the fruits of his labors and feel good about it because others need it more than he and he should be aware that it is done with good intentions..

   I am happy to say he is corrupted...

   and as the youth of America leave the college campii and their professors, get their first pay checks from a career path and not "just a job"..they too, will come to realize that SS is just the tip of the ice berg...and then have not yet begun to...pay.

   I have to admit tho, that the system turns out min-wage qualified workers by the millions and they will never see the same view as their higher earning counter parts...and as na result will demand even more of them..for the people, of course.

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/17/2008 @ 1:04pm

10. ".We're on the verge of the first progressive majority in decades. Social Security's problems--to the extent that it has any--are minor at best and decades in the future..There is no rush to fix this "problem," and if we can all wait another six months, the solution we find is likely to be much better for all Americans. .."

    To the extent their are problems?...this seems to be a problem of simple math on the part of Michael C..

    Yup, raise the tax...seems to be a Dem/lib pattern here...

    seems to be the answer to all the problems and seems to be the solution to all questions asked of Obie...

    raise the tax....

    lets tax ourselves to prosperity...

    I think I will move, hide and protect myself from the coming "taxing to prosperity",......and that is the after tax dollars...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/17/2008 @ 1:11pm

11. raise the tax....

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/17/2008

    Actually he said he would lower taxes but remove tax loopholes for the rich.

    "The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts, he said."

    Do your research first Jom.

    "I'd reward work by providing an income tax cut of up to $500 per person -- or $1,000 for each working family -- to offset the payroll tax that they're already paying," he said."

    ""Because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, my proposal would effectively eliminate all income taxes for 10 million working Americans."

    The only "raising of taxes" he would do is to roll back the tax cuts and eliminating the 1 trillion dollars in loopholes in the tax code.

    Should read before you make unfounded claims.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 1:35pm

12. We wouldn't want all of these young people taking control of their own lives. The left wants to keep them dependent on government.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/17/2008 @ 1:41pm

13. "Scare"? I think the word you meant to use was "inform". Presenting the facts about Social Security is all you need to persuade someone to favor privatization.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/17/2008

    How about presenting the facts about privatization. IE. Enron and the current bail out of tons of corporations. Privatization is not the answer. It's just the Republican battle standard because there is no creativity in solution. Privatization of social security will just lead to companies holding billions of dollars in peoples money and then going under or it will lead to another industry just like the insurance industries. You will be paying just as much into your social security as you do to the government and it stands even more of a chance of not being there because the business could always go under.

    There is this common thread amongst Republicans of privatization but privatization is a big risk when you are dealing in this much money and this kind of service that is incredibly important to older people. If these business go under they will take billions of dollars in older Americas money with them with no way for them to recover that. It will take only one incidence of this happening for people to turn on all of the companies with pitchforks and torches. We need a more creative solution than the typical Republican epithet of "privatize it." There are certain things that should not be privatized because they are too vital and a disaster in that area could sink the entire economy and ruin peoples lives. Throwing more money at the problem is not a solution but privatizing it is essentially going to lead to just throwing more money at private corporations instead of the government. Think outside the box.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 1:44pm

14. One solution to a portion of the problem is to stop the government from dipping their hands into our social security to begin with. Social Security should not be used by them to pay for anything else, it should be entirely off limits for them. Then stop the excess policies they have where they have to dispose of the excess of money left over from each years contributions to social security. Put the excess back into the system or return it to the people who are paying for SS do not let the government spend that money.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 1:47pm

15. Amazing how conservatives proclaim how a dynamic & flourishing economy will pay down the war debt somewhere in a glorious future, but Social Security is doomed to collapse, unless the private sector skims off billions & "saves it". Nothing more than jealousy at the most successful govt program in our history.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/17/2008 @ 1:49pm

16. Another solution is to hire number crunchers into the system. Reform the system so that each age bracket is only paying to their generations social security and have the government project the cost needs of an age bracket and then use that number multiplied by the number paying into social for that generation then use that number to determine the amount you have to tax each generation to pay into their own social security without having a larger generation eat up their Social Security like the Baby Boomers are now doing.

    This is exactly how a private company wold handle it. Each person would pay the amount that they will eventually use and that money would be guaranteed to be there when they came of age to need it. This is a government method of dealing with the situation without having to pay excessively higher taxes and it guarantees that your money will be there because if the US government goes under, you have to worry about more than just your SS, but a company can easily go under which is being proven now.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 2:05pm

17. Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008

    And CKA as I've constantly pointed out, if the "youth vote" is not consistantly progressive...

    who cares?

    Then they're a "fluid voter bloc" with no clear loyalties so their turn-out is meaningless since it can go EITHER WAY.

    And why is it mostly the LEFT who seem to tout it, if they "know" that it can break conservative???

    Posted by Mask at 06/17/2008 @ 2:22pm

18. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008

    Like I said...raise taxes....check out the IRS site for how many were eliminated from the tax roles by Bush on the low income side..

    Doesn't matter...I would eliminate income tax as a method altogether...but that is above most libs IQ zone to understand how it works...for the libs and govt would lose power,therefore, oppose it no matter how much sense it makes for all tax payers.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/17/2008 @ 2:24pm

19. Testimony on Social Security to New York City Council Committee on Civil Service and Labor May 12, 2005

    Doug Henwood Social Security: leave it alone, there's no crisis

    My name is Doug Henwood. I'm an economic journalist who's been writing about Social Security and related pensions issues for over a decade. I edit Left Business Observer, a newsletter on economics and politics, and am the author of three books, most recently Wall Street: How It Works and for Whom (Verso, 1997), and After the New Economy (forthcoming in paper in June from the New Press). I also host a weekly radio show on WBAI.

    I'd like to make several quick points; I'll be happy to refer anyone who's interested to other pieces I've written for more detail.

    The bankruptcy projections are bogus. All of the debate around Social Security proceed from the near universal assumption that it's headed for the rocks. There are differences on the details, but few challenges to the alleged certainty of the prediction.

    The source of this prediction is ultimately the annual report of the Trustees of the Social Security system, issued every spring. On close examination, these projections are, to put it kindly, dubious. On almost every count, the Trustees make the gloomiest assumptions imaginable.

    First, the demographic assumptions. Of course, as my generation, the baby boom, ages, the share of the elderly in the total population will rise. But by how much? Today, about 12% of the population is over 65; the Trustees project this rising steadily to 23% in 2080. The Census Bureau, by contrast, projects that rising to less than 22%. That difference, slightly over a percentage point, may not sound like much, but if the Census Bureau is right and the Trustees are wrong, that would reduce the system's projected deficit by one-quarter.

    But that's not all. The Trustees project a sharp falloff in population growth -- a 60% decline from current levels, meaning fewer young people and more older people. Part of the reason for this is decline that they project immigration to fall sharply from current levels -- important because most immigrants are young, and therefore net contributors to Social Security. Why these assumptions, so at odds with history?

    They don't really say.

    That sharp falloff in population growth is partly responsible for a sharp decline in the projected growth of the labor force. But it's not just a matter of slower population growth -- they're projecting that the labor force will grow more slowly than the population, even though the workforce has been growing twice as fast as the broad population for the last 45 years. Again, why should the future be that different from the past?

    The economic assumptions are equally gloomy.

    Even though we've been hearing a lot about the productivity revolution of the last decade, that's nowhere in the projections: they see productivity growth over the next 75 years as being 20% slower than it's been over the last century. Since economic growth is the sum of the growth in the labor force and in productivity, they're projecting that economic growth will average 2.0% over the next 75 years, compared with 3.4% over the last 75 years -- a rate comparable to that of the 1930s. If we're really facing a 75-year near depression, we should be having a conversation about that. But if the economy grows in line with historical averages, Social Security faces no funding shortfall at all. The System is sound as far as even the youngest eyes can see.

    Enough number-crunching. In closing, I'd like to emphasize the different visions of society between the privatizers and the architects of the Social Security system. The privatizers see a world in which we're all lone individuals, in ceaseless competition with each other, with no responsibility to anyone but ourselves.

    Behind Social Security is a vision of solidarity between people of all ages, races, and incomes. Do we really want to throw scores of millions of older people on the mercies of a volatile and pitiless stock market?

    Or do we want a society in which our elderly are guaranteed that they won't have to decide between buying food and buying medicine?

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 2:36pm

20. Maybe the Millennials have been through the bureaucratic nightmare of some other governmental agency at some point. Their generation seems to be more "efficience minded" than earlier generations.

    Posted by bleedingheart at 06/17/2008 @ 2:39pm

21. Testimony on Social Security to New York City Council Committee on Civil Service and Labor May 12, 2005

    June Zaccone

    My name is June Zaccone, and I am an economist speaking for the Executive Committee of the National Jobs for All Coalition, a group working toward jobs for all at decent pay. Our work on Social Security stems from the direct relationship between the health of Social Security and employment. The more people at work and the better their pay, the more funds flow into the Social Security Trust Fund through the payroll tax.

    Congratulations to the City Council for its resolution on Social Security. It recognizes Social Security as our most successful and popular social insurance program for seniors and for younger people, too. That you have taken it up also suggests its significance for local government. Social Security keeps many seniors out of poverty and off welfare. Now, one in twelve seniors are poor. Without Social Security, nearly one in two would be poor. Social Security also supports local finances by keeping businesses healthier, even during recessions. With seniors continuing to have income, local governments have the advantage of higher sales and business tax collections.

    Despite the resolution's excellent support of Social Security, it concedes an important argument that may leave an opening for changes in Social Security. Privatization is not the only way to destroy Social Security. It can also be destroyed by benefit cuts which weaken its political support. The resolution states that the President's plan does not "solve for the predicted short fall of finances that may, in the long term, create huge deficits in the program". As Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary and Social Security Trustee says, "I don't believe Social Security needs fixing." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-09-older-benefits_x.htm]

    There is no reason to change Social Security in any way right now. No one can forecast accurately for even one year ahead, much less for 75, as the Trustees are obliged to do. Except for the current year, their predictions about the health of the Trust Fund have been underestimates every year for nearly a decade.

    Using Trustee economic growth projections, which fall far short of our actual growth rates of the last 40 years, nearly everyone agrees that beneficiaries are fully covered until at least 2041. These projections build in the decline in numbers of workers per retiree that are said to cause the funding problem. [I have appended a summary of these predictions and their consequences for the Trust Fund.] It would be prudent to wait and see what our economic experience will be over the next few decades. The Trust Fund is sufficient for the next 35 years. If, as the Trustees assume, our growth rate averages little more than half that of the previous forty years, there will be time to adjust Social Security, or better, to improve our economy's performance.

    If their more realistic assumption--growth at about 80 percent of our previous experience--is accurate, the Trust Fund will grow without limit. If the economy is healthy, so too will be Social Security. Occasionally someone describes the crisis year as 2017, the year that we are projected to begin tapping the Trust Fund.

    President Bush has described the Fund as "worthless IOU's", but our creditors in China and Japan, and corporations around the world expect to be repaid. Why not seniors? Further, the President recently said, "I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option will consist entirely of treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government." I think it is safe to say that the second statement is the more accurate one. If the President believes that the Trust Fund is worthless, he should propose an immediate reduction in payroll taxes. Otherwise, his proposed benefit cuts seem to be an attempt at deficit reduction using the Social Security Trust Fund, with payroll taxes paid by ordinary workers.

    Social Security benefits have already been denied to college students who are children of disabled or deceased workers, and by 2027, workers will have to work to age 67 for full benefits. At a time when increasing numbers of workers have no health insurance and no pension, when jobs are less secure, and when wages have lagged, forcing many people to cut into their savings, cutting Social Security benefits will shrink or destroy the last safety net. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 2:43pm

22. "Presenting the facts about Social Security is all you need to persuade someone to favor privatization."

    Yeah, every time I do present facts about privatization, people wonder why the hell it's not called the Nanny State for the Corporations. Meanwhile when presented with facts about Social Security, people see it is just a giveaway to the financial corporations, and they see any form of security going out the door and up to the top suites.

    Except when talking with conservative types. Their eyes just glaze over and they start babbling on like the guy on the street corner hocking little Bibles.

    Posted by onthehelm at 06/17/2008 @ 2:47pm

23. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008

    Like I said...raise taxes....check out the IRS site for how many were eliminated from the tax roles by Bush on the low income side..

    Doesn't matter...I would eliminate income tax as a method altogether...but that is above most libs IQ zone to understand how it works...for the libs and govt would lose power,therefore, oppose it no matter how much sense it makes for all tax payers.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/17/2008

    He isn't raising taxes he is lowering taxes across the board. Raising taxes is a fear phrase Republicans use to scare people into voting for them.

    "but that is above most libs IQ zone to understand how it works."

    I expect better from you than such a stupidly partisan statement. Most people understand it and still don't want to do it. Not because of power as you so wrongly attribute it but because they don't think it will work. You can't prove to me that this will work until it is done. But taking such a huge step in a different direction means that it has to be guaranteed to work because if it doesn't the US would fall apart before it could get back to normality. It isn't that you are smarter it's just that you have chosen your way without ever bothering to consider that if it fails completely that the US is screwed. You believe blindly in your want to accomplish without ever questioning what happens if it fails.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 2:48pm

24. Testimony on Social Security to New York City Council Committee on Civil Service and Labor May 12, 2005

    Paddy Quick

    I appreciate this opportunity to contribute to the deliberations on Social Security by the New York City Council's Committee on Civil Service and Labor. I hereby submit an outline of my testimony, and will elaborate briefly on the major points of my testimony if time allows.

    1. The Bush administration's proposals on Social Security constitute an assault on the basic principle that a society should be structured to ensure a decent standard of living for all of its members.

    2. The claim that the Social Security System will be "bankrupt" in 2041 is the second of the Bush Administration's big lies. (His first big lie was that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which posed an imminent danger to the US.) A large proportion of young workers, such as the students I teach, have become convinced by the use of this word "bankruptcy" that they will receive zero social security benefits when they retire. But even if nothing were to done, and even if we were to accept the dire predictions of the Bush administration, the current Social Security law would provide future retirees with around 80% of promised benefits. And this would provide them with an income substantially higher than that of current social security recipients.

    3. FDR's New Deal, with Social Security as its center piece, was opposed by conservatives. It was enacted, after bitter fights, as the result of an alliance between an active working class and the liberal wing of the capitalist class, that like John Maynard Keynes, believed that compromise was necessary to preserve capitalism. This compromise was, however, bitterly opposed by conservative economists, who have continued their organized opposition to the present day. Milton Friedman (writing in 1962 in his classic work Capitalism and Freedom) and the present day ideologues in the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, have long been committed to the destruction of Social Security. Friedman listed among the government activities that could not be justified:

    "Present social security programs especially the old age and retirement programs compelling people in effect (a) to spend a specified fraction of their income on the purchase of retirement annuity (b) to buy the annuity from a publicly owned enterprise." (p.35)

    Thus he advocated not merely the establishment of private accounts but also the abolition of the entire social security system. (He also opposed minimum wage and rent control, and advocated the "denationalization" of public schools, i.e. the complete replacement of public schools with private schools, to be financed by school vouchers set at a "minimum" level.)

    4. The neo-liberals of today are not interested in "reforming" Social Security. They want to destroy it. They argue that this country's Social Security system denies individual members of our society their freedom to allocate their income as they choose (although they display no such solicitude when it comes to the use of taxpayers' money to finance war.) They assume that the income that each individual receives is a just reward for his or her contribution to production, and that there is no such thing as involuntary poverty. People then, they argue, have a "choice" as to whether or not to provide for old age:

    "Those of us who believe in freedom must believe also in the freedom of individuals to make their own mistakes. If a man knowingly prefers to live for today, to use his resources for current enjoyment, deliberately choosing a penurious old age, by what right do we prevent him from doing so?." [Friedman p. 168]

    5. I apologize for subjecting members of the Committee to what I regard as the rantings of a lunatic, but there is a frightening consistency to the right-wing agenda of Friedman and his followers. The proposed privatization of Social Security, and the drastic cuts in benefits currently proposed are, I believe part of a long-run strategy by the right to abolish an entire system of protection of human and labor rights established as the result of enormous struggle and the sacrifice of many lives. The undermining and eventual abolition of the Social Security System is only the first part of the agenda of the right. Part two, which is well underway, is an assault on Medicaid, and this will be followed, I predict, by step three, an all-out war on Medicare. We must do everything we can to stop this juggernaut by protecting our Social Security system today.

    6. Social Security was not set up to challenge the fundamental nature of capitalism, but to protect it. The injustices of a system which provided, and continues to provide growing wealth for the capitalist class through ongoing exploitation of the working class was particularly apparent in the Great Depression. Thus a section of the capitalist class was willing to join with masses of working people to provide a very small, but significant protection against poverty. Now, as much as we need to defend the Social Security Program, we need to acknowledge two flaws within the program, and a more fundamental flaw in the program itself.

    7. One basic flaw in the program took the form of "fine print." Domestic servants and agricultural workers were not "in the system." Thus the "generosity" of the New Deal did not extend to the overwhelming majority of wage-earning African-Americans and Latinos, let alone to Native Americans. And today it does not cover the many undocumented workers who pay into the Social Security system but are unable to draw benefits. A second flaw was in its failure to cover women whose work had taken the form of household work. Married women who had never engaged in wage labor were entitled to social security benefits when their husbands died (if their husbands were within the system), but were and still are unable to claim benefits on the basis of their own un-waged labor.

    8. But the fundamental problem with the system is one which we have to recognize today as we take up the task of defending it. Social Security was structured as a "contributory" program, rather than one financed out of general tax revenue. This meant that the Social Security program was presented to the people of the Untied States as a program in which those who paid money into the system could later draw on it. The alternative would have been a system which provided for the people of our society on the basis of a recognition of their humanity. A just society is one in which people who do work earn a living wage, in which everyone is provided for, if they are old, sick, or unable to work, and in which people are able to retire and enjoy their old age after a lifetime of work. Benefits could, as now, be designed so that retirement benefits were linked to previous income, but with a progressive element to favor those whose incomes during their working years were low.

    9. The decision to structure Social Security as a contributory program, with the appearance of an insurance system, was made to avoid the charge that the program was a "socialist" one. This was undoubtedly essential for the passage of the Social Security law in a period when "socialism" was synonymous with evil, as it still is for many. Nonetheless those who designed our Social Security system included the word "social" in the title of the program. But they did not want to open the floodgates to those who looked at people as forming a social group, a society, rather than a collection of self-centered and selfish individuals. In this they agreed with the future assertion by a former-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, that "There is no such thing as society."

    10. While most people have been content to view the program as one which guaranteed a decent standard of living to the elderly and disabled, the rightwing opponents of Social Security have continued to reassert that the program is merely a compulsory savings program. This lays the foundation for their argument that people could get a higher yield on their money in private accounts and that "freedom" requires them to be able to do so. And the next argument, of course, is that "freedom" should permit them to opt out of the system altogether if they so wish, i.e. to opt out of their responsibilities as members of society.

    11. In immediate, practical terms, the conclusion I draw from my analysis is that in fighting to preserve Social Security we can move forward. We have an opportunity now to argue not only that there should be no cuts at all in future benefits and no extension of the age at which people can draw full benefits, but that we not only can but must draw on general tax revenue in so far as this is necessary to finance future benefits. Many people have pointed out that a roll-back of the top-income tax cuts of 2001 and 2004 would be more than sufficient to deal with any projected shortfall. But I favor a more specific proposal: namely that we should restore the estate tax to its pre-2001 rate (as opposed to eliminate it as Bush has proposed) and put all of the revenue from this tax into the Social Security trust fund. Then our actuaries could get to work and put before us alternative proposals on how to increase Social Security benefits rather than how to cut them.

    Thank you for allowing me to share my ideas with you.

    Dr. Paddy Quick holds a B.A. degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University, and a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. She is currently employed as a Professor of Economics at St. Francis College, Brooklyn. She is a member of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE), the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE), and the American Economic Association (AEA).

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 2:52pm

25. My apologies for going all Rese/Plunger on you folks today with the large cut and pastes, but I thought it was the only way that most of us, myself included, would actually read the above and absorb some of this information.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 2:54pm

26. Posted by Mask at 06/17/2008 | ignore this person | warn this

    One more time, even though you refuse to engage with the actual content of what Mr. Connery, among other commentators, has written. One, this particular cohort of young voters, the so-called Millenials, is larger even then the Baby Boomers. Two, so far this year, they have come out in record numbers, continuing a trend seen in both 2004 and 2006 of growing involvement plus a shifting allegiance to the Democratic Party. And three, studies have shown that a significant number of voters will lock in their partisan preference if they are attracted to a political party early in their life, especially if they vote for the same party three election cycles in a row. That's why the youth vote in a particular year can be important, especialloy why a bunch of liberal-left types are excited about it.

    You may dismiss it, the right-wing may be quietly (or not so much) unhappy about it and I might see it as another generation lost to the Democratic Party illusion, but of the three points of view, yours is the one the seems to rely least on the facts on the ground and most on shiboleths from 40 years ago.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 3:08pm

27. Young people are also less likely to have health insurance. That was the case for this early boomer and late bloomer.

    Is what we're seeing now is a generational difference that any other middle-aged or older person has also experienced?

    On a different note, the financial point is not clear: realistic projections show that there may be no funding crisis, EVER, given current demographics. And there is a funding crisis for Medicare though, sometime in the next 15 years or so.

    Young people don't earn as much money, usually. The fixed Social Security rate is very regresssive.

    The last point leads to a policy proposal: Raise the floor for Social Security and Medicare taxes to $15,000 a year and raise the ceiling so that people making over $100,000 are taxed progressively on their excess.

    The result of this funding reform is that the Social Security tax will be more progressive, not taxing anyone who makes under $15,000, taxing more progressively those who make over $100,000!

    Why doesn't Obama offer this reform? Many in middle-America will benefit, and the rich will have to pay a more fair share!!

    Posted by jkrogman at 06/17/2008 @ 3:29pm

28. The privatization issue is a carefully constructed red herring.

    The very foundation of privatization is absent.

    Social Security is not a retirement plan. It is a social welfare program, benefiting retirees AND widows, widowers (and the deceased's children), disabled, etc.

    The privatization scam is just another Republican dirty trick, intended to build support among the young who may also resent health insurance coverage since they likely won't benefit as much as the middle-aged or older. It is also favored (ironic understatement intended) by the financial sector, who would love to get windfall commissions from any privatization.

    The advice of Connelly is shrewd, since Social Security is a complex issue. Simple solutions are usually simple-minded.

    But can't we point out that Social Security is a social welfare program that we shouldn't eliminate without a lot of careful discussion and analysis? Who wants to kick kids into the street just because their parent died?

    Posted by jkrogman at 06/17/2008 @ 3:44pm

29. Why doesn't Obama offer this reform? Many in middle-America will benefit, and the rich will have to pay a more fair share!!

    Posted by jkrogman at 06/17/2008

    Why doesn't Obie do this?

    Because $100,000 a year is not wealthy and this group is solidly middle class, especially if he is paid on a W-2, and WILL NOT BENEFIT from this tax OR SS payments to them...

    this is the main problem with libs and economics...you seem to think $100k is rich...at $100k, after all taxes and deductions combined, you will have less than 1/2 your salary....and you also do not have an intelligent Dem voter at this point...take him to 60% taxes and you will have created a conservative, or a least have him questioning..

    I love the change ad for Obama...for that is all you will have left...change...after all his tax fixes are in...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/17/2008 @ 3:56pm

30. Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008

    CKA, again, the generic "youth vote" has been touted for 40 years...and touted primarily by the Left as always "on the verge" of "changing this country, radically".

    The claims have been going on since the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and now the 2000s.

    And it's always the same. Not "the youth vote can shift, become conservative one set of elections cycles, progressive the next"...but always that somehow "the kids" are going to push an agenda decidedly left-wing "because" they were "more open-minded, open to new ideas", whatever.

    You don't see the RIGHT talking about the "youth vote" as some force soon to emerge and dominate the landscape for FORTY YEARS. And they COULD HAVE, back in the 80s when it was going for Reagan and Bush-41 in '88.

    The cheerleading for the "youth vote"...back to McGovern...came from the Left and STILL comes from the Left.

    And if they "know" that it's fluid and can go either way (Repub or Dem)...they're not acting that way.

    BTW, love to be proven wrong. Easiest way to do that is find me an article (like here in "The Nation") from the early-mid 1980s talking about "Well, we've lost the youth vote...they're all right-wingers now...but it's fluid, they'll come back to the Left within 20 years).

    Posted by Mask at 06/17/2008 @ 3:59pm

31. Why doesn't Obie do this?

    Because $100,000 a year is not wealthy and this group is solidly middle class, especially if he is paid on a W-2, and WILL NOT BENEFIT from this tax OR SS payments to them...

    this is the main problem with libs and economics...you seem to think $100k is rich...at $100k, after all taxes and deductions combined, you will have less than 1/2 your salary....and you also do not have an intelligent Dem voter at this point...take him to 60% taxes and you will have created a conservative, or a least have him questioning..

    I love the change ad for Obama...for that is all you will have left...change...after all his tax fixes are in...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/17/200

    Actually Jom. 100,000 dollars a year is still in the middle class tax bracket. It is considered upper middle class not wealthy. This is another misconception that likes to get pushed whenever Repubs are trying to get in office. No body consider 100k wealthy. They consider it to be middle class.

    "I love the change ad for Obama...for that is all you will have left...change...after all his tax fixes are in..."

    Again you can keep lying but Obama's changes will affect the entire middle class including the upper middle class by lowering their taxes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 4:10pm

32. These are more disingenuous scare tactics. Nobody is talking about changing this for people over age 45 or so. Even for the people younger than that, they still have income guarantees. This is ridiculous.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/17/2008

    Yes but it doesn't matter. At some point we will be doing exactly what he said. It doesn't matter when it happens he is just saying that it will.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 5:36pm

33. Posted by Mask at 06/17/2008

    You're a broken record. You can only argue with a generic argument that Mr. Connery isn't even making, although you're dishonest enough to try to impute that he is making it, unless you're called on it, in which case you whip out the 40-year old bogeyman of the "Left" youth vote cheerleader. Fine, such cheerleading, as I've said before, was infantile, but if you bother actually reading what Mr. Connery has written, that is not what he is engaging in, nor does he use the arguments you impute to him or your straw men.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/17/2008 @ 5:41pm

34. And that's just twenty years. Most people will invest over 40 years.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/17/2008

    Yeah but if those people invest fully in only one private healthcare firm it means ALL of their money is gone if that company goes under.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 5:45pm

35. "That added yield one can expect from investing in equities can shore up the system in 35 years: It can't do it over 3 years."

    Or it can completely collapse the system in 33 years.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 6:14pm

36. Some of you conservative bean counters might want to talk with a few folks over 80 years of age, who were around before social security. It wasn't uncommon for a person to retire from a job & go directly to the poor farm. During the Depression era, job seekers often waited just outside the gate for a man to be fired & to replace him on the spot. If you got sick & had no money, a doctor might say, " Your mother has a house, doesn't she"? Try to remember that it took every penny to maintain a large family common in that era (and still does). Its better today, but always a struggle with right wingers clamoring for regression.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/17/2008 @ 7:24pm

37. In order to get to a place of generational equity, I think it would take 60 - 75 years. The first generation would pay for the one ahead of it and one-third of it's own. The next would pay two-thirds of the one ahead of it and two-thirds of it's own. The third generation would pay one-third of the generation ahead of it and three-thirds of it's own.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/17/2008

    Well yeah. I am not talking about overnight change just like you aren't. When you talk about privatizing you are still talking about maintaining the protection for anyone 45 and older as they reach retirement which means anyone younger than them is still going to be paying for them as they start to pay into their own Social Security as well. Which will still also require trillions just not in taxes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 7:57pm

38. This is supposed to be a Conservative joke, but he screwed up the delivery. The joke is that putting "social" in front of a word is a lot like putting "anti" in front of the word. Social Security is anti-security: it can be taken away at any moment by an act of Congress.

    Social justice is anti-justice. Screw justice for the individual for the benefit of many.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/17/2008

    Now I get it. Thank you Mary.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 8:00pm

39. I understand your argument Mary. I am not for taxing the crap out of people to fix the program. However I feel like privatization is not the solution either. I think this is an issue in which we need a creative solution beyond the typical privatize axiom. I don't think this is going to be a simple solution. I think privatizing it would collapse the system entirely and just lead us back to the times where if your husband died your family could end up starving to death. We need to look at how to step FORWARD with a program that has many merits not backward.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/17/2008 @ 8:04pm

40. Social Security can be made as secure as the united states itself. Simply tax a percentage of all income rather than just labor through the fica tax and don't let congress touch it. We could also make it subject to raiding by letting Enron or Bear Sterns handle it.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/17/2008 @ 8:22pm

41. Addenda: remember that gluttony and greed doesn't have a conscience.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/17/2008 @ 8:24pm

42. Posted by julien38 at 06/17/2008 Addenda: remember that gluttony and greed doesn't have a conscience.

    Still true. Nothing has changed.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/17/2008 @ 8:32pm

43. Addenda: remember that gluttony and greed doesn't have a conscience.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/17/2008

    True...

    Just look at ALGORE...

    "Energy Guzzled by Al Gore's Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month Gore's personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite "energy-efficient" home renovations

    NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President's home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

    "A man's commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home," said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. "Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption."

    In the past year, Gore's home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

    In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore's Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. .."

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/17/2008 @ 11:33pm

44. "Millennials are more open to the government spending money to stabilize Social Security."

    what money?

    "the biggest holder of Treasury debt was the U.S. government itself, with about 52 percent of the total $8.5 trillion in paper that's out there."

    boing! boing! boing! boing! boing!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 01:59am

45. Posted by JOMAMMA

    o.k., electronman.

    go get your bill and tell me how many kilowatts YOU used last month.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 02:01am

46. Posted by JOMAMMA

    o.k., electronman.

    go get your bill and tell me how many kilowatts YOU used last month.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008

    I use less in a year than MR Global Fraud uses in a week and my useage remained about the same...

    and, who cares what I used? I am not flying around in my G-5 wanting to tax the shit out of my fellow citizens for using carbon, selling carbon credit indulgences, and living in a house whose bathroom uses more than the rest of Americans homes in total, and picking up a variety of "Awards" for being Mister Enviroment,this hypocracy at its best, as he always was,except to fools like Bushfools.

    ...not to mention his increase of usage, which again is higher than everyone else..

    ..only a lefty would respond to the article asking the poster what HIS usage is, instead of actualy responding to the article itself...more hypocracy.

    He is a fraud, as is the lefts messages, and its messengers, it appears.

    Shame on him....and you.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/18/2008 @ 08:51am

47. Darren, is it? (i.e., marybretbrad),

    If the government can't "save" money, what are rainy day funds?

    Have you ever read any libertarian or conservative writing on social security, and I don't mean their proposals for "reforming" the system, but their theoretical and philosophical writings on it? Have you ever read what activists like Grover Norquist and economists like Milton Friedman wanted to do with the system? These are not powerless men, here, just spouting into the ether. It is not a conspiracy theory if the plans and strategies are out there for anyone to see in their own position papers.

    Reforming Social Security and Medicare may start with the Pete Petersons of the world, billionaire investment bankers who want to give the rest of us the chance to "build wealth" through financial investment and who are willing to give up the "benefits" that he doesn't need, but it will end with the Norquists, Cato Institutes, American Enterprise Institutes and Heritage Foundations leading the charge for Wall Street to privatize most of the system, leaving a rump Social Security system in place only for the "undeserving" poor.

    Then, the "daring entrepreneurs" who are taking charge of their retirements by investing in the markets will be convinced that those who still rely on SSI are stealing from the more productive elements of society, themselves, and should have their benefits first frozen, and then cut, and eventually we'll see the "end of Social Security as we know it" by some slick, disgusting, future friend of the working man like Bill Clinton.

    Of course, during the periodic downturns in the markets, when hundreds of thousands and maybe millions are bankrupted, those self-reliant souls will be told not to expect a government bail-out (the investment banks can expect them, so the whole system doesn't join so many of its individual cogs in the crapper) and to just start investing for their retirement again; somehow, though, that retirement keep receding into the future for more and more people as they keep having to start over and over.

    This may not be theoretical economics, nor is it conspiracy theories. It is real-world politics and history.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2008 @ 10:45am

48. Shame on him....and you.

    Posted by JOMAMMA

    why me?

    i can't do anything about mr. gore because i don't know him.

    my familiy uses less than 140 kilowatts/hours per person per month, averaged through the year.

    and we have electric heat!

    c'mon JM, go get the bill.

    <i>US Per Capita Electricity Use By State in 2003

    State Rank State Name kW (million) Estimated Population Per Capita Electricity Use (kWh)

    1 Wyoming 13,254 501,915 26,407 = 2200 kwh per month</i>

    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    go get the bill, JM.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 11:00am

49. Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008

    Again, what does my bill have to do with ALGORE telling us to cut back and charging us carbon credits while his mansion uses more in the bathroom than 90% of all American homes? And his 10% increase is the hypocracy, while telling others to cut or park their cars, buy those light Mercury filled bulbs that cost more to destroy than they save on energy..FRAUD!!!!

    Whats your bill, or mine, got to do with ALGORES fraud?

    The shame on you is an overview of how the left takes everything from the Gore view as Gospel and vilifies the Madrasa montras humming in the back ground...Neo cons, neocons, neocons....when the fraud is your Pope of the new religion..ALGORE and GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING/WHATEVER IT IS THIS YEAR...fraud...shanme on him for pushing it and shame on the rest of the left who worships all things Gore.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/18/2008 @ 1:03pm

50. gore is a bacon eating fool.

    go get the bill.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 1:08pm

51. Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/18/2008

    First of all not all of us, hell not even 50% of care about Gore. I certainly don't. Second, you need a drink Jom to calm your nerves.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/18/2008 @ 1:34pm

52. Frosty,

    OK..I will humour you...

    Last year I used 3300 Kw per month ..divided by 5 people in my house 660 per person.

    So what? I have a heat pump and all electric everything else except a dryer and 2 of 3 fire places burn gas, one of which we never use....

    On the surface...you need to cut back and I need to use more...I have 4700 sq ft to heat and cool...thanks for using nothing, but I think you should switch to all wood, since I like ALGORE, might need to use more if I take a second home.

    Now..this proves what? and relates to ALGORES fraud how? and to the left whinning about cutting back for the rest as they use more?

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/18/2008 @ 1:39pm

53. o.k., electronman.

    go get your bill and tell me how many kilowatts YOU used last month.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008

    Frosty, I don't know how many killowatt (1000 Volt*Amp) hours JM used in electricity, but I can assure you that he's either overflowing his septic system or the city or county sewage system where he lives with the vast amounts of bullshit that comes from his house on a daily basis.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/18/2008 @ 2:03pm

54. Frosty,

    OK..I will humour you...

    Posted by JOMAMMA

    saddened, actually.

    use less. save money.

    the mideast "troubles" are about energypower.

    the silly old books are just a façade.

    you'll get reflux if you keep regurgitating algore.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 2:12pm

55. Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/18/2008

    Gore is a walking contradiction.

    "Do as I say, not as I do."

    Indefensible.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/18/2008 @ 2:32pm

56. Many anti-poverty programs haven't been shut down altogether, but their benefits have been cut back or capped so that, adjusted for inflation, they are lower today then they were 40 years ago. I'm thinking of AFDC, Food Stamps and the Minimum Wage (not an entitlement program, per se, but certainly an anti-poverty measure). Plus, Clinton's welfare reform both pulled people out of educational programs and allowed cities and states to replace public sector workers with welfare recepients whose only "wages" were their sub-minimum wage welfare benefits. I don't expect anything more honest or humane from partial privatization of Social Security.

    And if you think Milton Friedman was not influential, then why do you think wealthy right wing'ers fund think tanks, legal societies, academic chairs and institutes, publications, etc., etc., etc.? Hell, it has been plausibly argued that Friedman was the most influential thinker of the last half of the Twentieth Century, given the worldwide impact of his economic ideas as put into effect by people like Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet and all of the Thirld World graduates of the University of Chicago's Economics Department. Alan Greenspan probably wishes in his heart that he was Milton Friedman.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2008 @ 2:46pm

57. you'll get reflux if you keep regurgitating algore.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18

    I do not bring him up...the left does and ALGORE will not go away...

    as far as my electric usage.. I will use what I need as I can afford and as it is avaiable in the market...

    I would love to see more Nuke power and more drilling at home...there is more than enouygh around...and I do not want govt to raise the price because it fools the voters into believe that by them paying more or forced to pay more they are saving the planet...moronic...

    and conserving is not moronic, it is wise...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/18/2008 @ 4:00pm

58. It is the idea that if we permit reform to OASDI that it will be the first step down the very slippery slope of complete elimination that is preposterous.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/18/2008

    MBB,

    Under any other administration or in any other time frame, I would probably agree with you that thinking that way would be preposterous, but the crap W and company have pulled off in their 7 plus year stint makes me extremely suspicious as well.

    Point in case is Blackwater. I am not aware of the U.S. military using private mercenaries to train forces for them or for that matter provide security that the U.S. forces typically provide.

    Given that W and the boys have allowed private corporations to medal directly with the U.S. government is a little on the alarming side from a citizen's stand point.

    We've seen how trying to profit from a war has bankrupted the country while allowing private businesses to prosper at the expense of the tax payer. You don't like subsidizing people with social security checks, I don't like subsidizing rich businessmen with open ended government checks either.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/18/2008 @ 5:09pm

59. "I was making the point that no more than 2% - 3% of citizens think eliminating all government welfare is a good idea. how are you going to build than into the 60% to 70% support you need to change policy in the US in the next seven months?"

    ...You would have to hold a gun to a lot of heads.

    "I guess if there was a massive terrorist plot executed by senior citizens that blew up the empire state building, you might get 30% who would agree to cut their benefits, but I don't see how you get to eliminate them."

    That's just a funny image. Old people in wheel chairs with AK's

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/18/2008 @ 8:42pm

60. JOMAMMA:

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently did a detailed study of the likely outcome of offshore drilling for their Annual Energy Outlook 2007, "Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)." The sobering conclusion:

    The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

    And the impact of the projected 7% (!) increase in lower-48 oil production that might result in 2030 thanks to opening the OCS is … wait for it …

    … any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/18/2008 @ 11:15pm

61. I would like Livelips, MBB, JM and the rest of these pro Wall Street jackasses take a gander at this clip.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25252591

    Go ahead and defend McCain, W and the boys after seeing this.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2008 @ 08:56am

62. MBB,

    You might be correct the SS wouldn't be eliminated, but that is exactly what the neocons wish to do. They want to get their greedy friggin mits on all that money that comes out of peoples' pay checks so they can collect the interest off the money instead of the money collecting in the SS funds.

    It boils down to who do you want to see get hold the interest money, the government..that would be you and me, or some private investment firm...that would be the banks and wall street assholes. Go ahead and screw yourself over if you will, but from what you've told me, you are neither wealthy nor have the clout to stop these folks from stripping you of your wealth some day either.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2008 @ 09:01am

63. So Iraq wasn't about oil? Then how is that these companies have no bid contracts being set up in Iraq?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25256439/

    And here's a nice little article that shows just how honest our business managers operate when left unchecked.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25259083/

    To side with Frosty, I put forth this article. Drilling for oil now won't make a dent in the prices as they stand now.

    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html?cnn=yes

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2008 @ 09:18am

64. Anyone who has been paying attention to the problems the U.S. has, knows that it is entitlement spending -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They will soon crowd out all other "social spending" because there simply won't be enough money.

    And don't bother saying "just raid the rich." They don't have enough money to cover it, and if one tried to, it would wreck the economy, because you'd pretty soon drive all "the rich" away, or into the poor house.

    Social Security needs reform because it's a 1930's designed program , from another era. Then, life expectancy was under 65, now it's in the 80's for women. Then, no one owned stocks, only 'the rich." Now over half the population has some ownership, and there are pension funds, college endowments, mutual funds, index funds, etc.

    One thing people always forget -- you have no right to Social Security money you've paid in. None, no ownership at all. If one were able to at least pay some amount into a retirement account like Federal workers do (and Congressman do for that matter), a worker would get a property interest, and one investment option would be Government Bonds (poor return, but as stable an investment there is). As workers age, they switch investments into the Government fund, so they avoid any market fluctuations. (That could even be made mandatorty)

    It really is a no brainer -- no one should have to live on Social Security benefits when they could become very well off if they were just allowed to invest their own money, and keep the Government's hands off of it.

    These Paleo Liberals have had the same idea since FDR -- nationalize it, expand the government, and sit down and shut up all you folks who care about liberty and freedom: "We know best."

    Posted by J. Saxon at 06/19/2008 @ 09:34am

65. It really is a no brainer -- no one should have to live on Social Security benefits when they could become very well off if they were just allowed to invest their own money, and keep the Government's hands off of it.

    Posted by J. Saxon at 06/19/2008

    JS,

    You are assuming that all people would have money to invest if they didn't have the social security monies withheld from their paychecks. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there living paycheck to paycheck and are scraping to make ends meet. They have no investment portfolios, no insurance, and no property ownership.

    These people need some kind of safety net to survive. Not everyone is out to rip the system. Some people work hard, have low paying jobs and aren't financial gurus. Does that mean they should have to rot in the streets?

    Social Security does need to be updated, not done away with. If need be, they can up the age of when people receive benefits, and also increase across the board how of everyone's check goes into it. If a person is a milllionaire or makes over a certain amount, there's no reason for them to draw a social security check. I personnally know a guy who is worth millions and yet he still gets his social security check and he thinks it's funny. I don't see the humor in it myself.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/19/2008 @ 10:04am

66. According to the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the two candidates' tax plans, 80% of taxpayers would get more from Obama's cuts than from McCain's. About 95% of taxpayers would pay less under Obama than under current law (which ends many of the tax breaks passed in the past decade).

    The major policy and ideological differences b/wn mcbush and obama need to start trumping all the other clutter and trivial nonsense...they provide radically different pictures of a future America; in one case mcbush promises a continuation of neonazi torture spying law-breaking, constitution rewriting, persecution of our own citizens to enrich the few...and the other candidate Obama stresses following the will of the people....and making us deserving of respect again and a leader once again on the world stage who leads by example....remember why our ancestors came to this country again (hint: to avoid tyranny, dictatorship, theocratic govt. represented by bush/mcbush)!!!!!!!!

    Posted by jrs112 at 06/19/2008 @ 10:34am

67. Posted by marybretbrad at 06/18/2008

    If you review the opening of my earlier post, you'll note that I described the Minimum Wage as "(not an entitlement program, per se, but certainly an anti-poverty measure)." Only 3 percent of wage earners may earn it, but it acts as a floor on wages. Raise the floor and other wages will rise in response to it. I've seen this happen in union negotiations, and we've seen it happen on the other side as executive compensation has chased the top earners.

    I have reviewed my personal posts to this list and in none have them have I argued that Social Security was targeted for "complete elimination" (your words, not mine). Rather, I have argued that "partial privatization" will ultimately lead to a Social Security system for the poor only, and like social welfare programs targeting only the poor, it will become unpopular and an easy target for benefit caps, budget cuts and political cheap shots. Benefits will not keep up with the rate of inflation, just like welfare benefits, food stamp allocations and the minimum wage have not kept up with the inflation rate over the last 40 years. I base my predictions of the future of Social Security "reform" on the history of "welfare reform" and other anti-poverty efforts.

    I am not accusing you of being dishonest, just of not being careful enough in reading or characterizing what I have written myself, as opposed to what I have posted by others (and I'm not sure if any of them predicted the actual elimination of SSI altogether either; Henwood, in particular, tries to stay away from Chicken Little-like predictions).

    By the way, I have read it argued that Medicare and/or Medicaid were actually responsible for eliminating more senior citizen poverty than Social Security. Have you come across that position, or do you have any thoughts on it?

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/19/2008 @ 5:09pm

68. Responding to marybretbrad:

    On the Minimum Wage: As I understand it, despite a vigourous counterattack, the former mainstream economic consensus that the minimum wage always increased unemployment was shattered after empirical studies in New Jersey and elsewhere showed otherwise. Politically and ethically speaking, it also rewards work rather than market speculation, which is and should be a popular position. And as I noted, it has the effect of raising wages in general, also a good thing in my book.

    On the Earned Income Tax Credit: I'm being a bit facetious here, but you may be the last conservative in America to admit liking the EITC, which is quite shocking since the EITC was pushed by Republicans and conservatives as an alternative to raising the minimum wage in the 80's, probably using some of the same arguments you have mentioned. Probably out of sheer greed, corporate America seems to have turned against any transfer of money to the poor, so the EITC has been under attack from the Right in the last decade or so, making even my cyncial head spin more than usual. Honestly, I have no problem with a good, strong EITC supplementing a good, strong, indexed to the inflation rate minimum wage.

    The Market vs. Social Security: I just do not have your faith in the powers of the financial markets to create long-term wealth for the masses acting as individual investors, and I emphasize that last phrase, "acting as individual investors." If 1929 and 1987 and Enron and Worldcom and the real estate bubble haven't taught us yet, too many people will lose everything trying to engage in what is SUPPOSED to be a risky venture. And that's even if they are invested through mutual funds, especially in an unregulated market. I just think that the risk and the responsibility must be shared to ensure everyone has a decent retirement.

    And I'm not sure there aren't other ways to address your income floor idea, either, without going towards partial privatization.

    Gotta run!

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/20/2008 @ 10:01am

69. This has been a great debate. I'd just like to throw a few things into the mix.

    First, no one has mentioned raising the retirement age. People live far longer now than they did when the program was promulgated. I also suspect that for people in my age group (I'm 45), there will be less of a threat of enforced early retirement as my generation has the baby-boomers ahead of them to provide for and a demographic contraction behind us. One could raise it to 67 or 70.

    I also favor raising the cap of the percentage of taxable income subject to the FICA tax.

    Regarding investment instead, some of those people who can afford to invest are doing so already. I expect to collect SSI in about 20-25 years but I also put 10% of my income into a 401(k). I have higher levels of risk/return (the risk part has been more prominent this year) with that but the SSI is there to provide a secure baseline income that those who can afford it, can add to. Those who can't aren't likely to benefit from partial privatization.

    The other problem is that the history of lifting investment restrictions hasn't always been a good one. The S&L crisis came out of a situation where the thrifts could no longer charge enough interest to pay rates competitive with what people could get elsewhere. The deregulation left them the leeway to engage in speculation on junk bonds and the result was the S&L crisis.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/20/2008 @ 11:05am

70. Ack!!! Raise the retirement age!!! With so many people working more than 40 hours a week, with so many people working two and three jobs just to get by, with fewer and fewer unions around giving workers even the merest protections on the job, let alone a say in how the work and the worksite is organized and run, why the hell would most people agree to being forced to wait until later to access their SSI retirement benefits. Sure, brunowe, people should have the option to work after they retire, but I'm sick and tired of the right-wing pushing social security reform and an increase in the retirement age even as they support the busting of unions and the imposition of mandatory overtime and other practices that make the workday even more fricking unbearable than it used to be.

    Whatever happened to the damn lunch HOUR, for instance!

    Also, I'd hesitate before you put too much faith in 401k's, etc. People can and do access them for other purposes, as we've seen during the mortgage crisis. Private group pension systems were safer and fairer, as far as I'm concerned, and I'd rather see their return, including portability, rather than the expansion of individual retirement accounts, 401k's, etc. And I do appreciate your warning, brunowe, about the deregulation of financial institutions. It has been an absolute disaster and a boondoggle, and has been the driving force behind the accelerated Boom/Bust Cycle we are now living under.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/20/2008 @ 11:42am

71. People are living longer cka2nd, they should work longer. However, your points about current working conditions are well taken. They, however, need to be addressed by reforms that bear directly on them. Allowing card-check union ceritifcation, cracking down on the scam of calling workers "contractors" so employers don't have to pay overtime.

    The problem with DB pension plans is that portability could consist of the company at which the employee retires being force to bear the burden of paying the pension of an employee who, perhaps, had only been with them a short time. Most DB plans required a minimum tenure at the employer for that reason.

    My point about the 401(k) (and you can say this about IRAs as well) is that those people who have money to invest on their own for retirement can already do so, not that it should be a substitute for SSI.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/20/2008 @ 11:50am

72. Two points in response to marybretbrad:

    "Higher wages are driven by productivity." - Well, until recently this seemed to be true, in fact, it was treated as an iron "law of economics," but the past 30 years or so have seen double or triple digit increases in productivity by the American production worker and only a small single-digit increase in wages, if any. So, between the corporations and the politicians they've bought and sold, some economic laws can at least be amended.

    "America has the wealthiest middle class in the world. We have the largest economy even though China and India each have 3 times the population that we do. Why? It is because our capital markets are the best in the world at allocating scarce capital among competing ventures." - To be fair, I'm not sure if your remarks about capital markets is your explanation for both the size of the American economy and the wealth of the American middle class. If it is your answer to the latter, I have to disagree. The greatest strike wave in human history in 1945 and 1946 combined with widespread unionization, building and re-building the nation's infrastructure, leading the way in re-building the world's economy after World War II (including skimming off the top at every opportunity) and a peacetime war economy produced both a large, wealthy working class and a large wealthy middle class (I try to distinguish between the two, with the latter including small business owners, most managerial employees and those who rely on some kind of a degree to keep their job).

    As far as I can tell, our capital markets ceased playing any kind of a productive role in the real economy decades ago - most R&D and capital investment funds being raised in-house or through banks or private capital - and have sunk to what they always threatened to become, and usually sank to without strict government oversight: mere gambling halls for Wall Street and the commodities traders. I probably sound like an old prohibitionist, but the amorality, if not the absolute moral turpitude (when was the last time you heard that word bandied about?) of the financial markets really sickens me. And the gloss put on financial trading, as if such speculation and gamesmanship is a worthy substitute for manufacturing or useful services like healthcare or food service (or acting, by heavens!) makes me want to spew on the Larry Kudlows of the world.

    Boy, can you tell I've been holding in that rant for a while. This debate really did turn into a pleasure, though. Thanks to all who contributed, especially to our worthy representative of the right, marybretbrad.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/20/2008 @ 3:47pm

73. Privatization ensures that the bulk of benefits grow at the same rate that the economy grows.

    It also puts what is supposed to be a secure base-line income at risk during the next bubble.

    Regarding retirement ages, most of the jobs coming into play aren't going to involve bricklaying. We are looking at healthcare, education, office support services, etc.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/21/2008 @ 01:10am

74. I just want to say this has been an enjoyable discussion to follow. Both sides have made comments that were thoughtful and full of insight.

    I am hopeful that America can tackle any problem--such as the SS challenge--if we can engage in reasoned rational debate instead of each side demonizing the other.

    Why not study what other countries are doing, steal the ideas the work the best, modify them to meet our needs and "get 'er done"? Who cares if it is a "right" or a "left" idea as long as it works?

    I would say that anything that provides a stable income safety net with an opportunity for some type of individual equity ownership sounds like a pretty good setup to me.

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/21/2008 @ 12:12pm

75. With fear in your eyes....

    It's night, the tepid tincture of the valley invites me to escape near the sound of a woody recall, and this in your delicate sign, the second degree of a beautiful kiss...

    Francesco Sinibaldi

    Posted by Sinibaldi at 06/21/2008 @ 3:38pm