alan simpson


Richard Eskow's picture

Hey, We're Gonna Balance the Budget! But Seriously, Folks ...

Heard any good jokes lately? This headline was making the Internet rounds yesterday:

"Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit."

It's easy to see the humor in that. It's almost like saying you're serious about saving money but don't want to put any more pennies into the piggy bank. But here's what isn't so funny: Most reporters and politicians agree that Kent Conrad is "serious."

So-called "deficit hawks" like Conrad, Erskine Bowles, and Alan Simpson aren't just unserious. They're radicals. Their positions are an extreme departure from the philosophy of government that's guided American policy for a century. They're promoting an upward redistribution of wealth that would change the shape of our society forever. They're want to weaken a social contract that's existed since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and dismantle the economic principles we've had since Teddy Roosevelt. more »

More »»


Richard Eskow's picture

Simpson/Bowles: A Predawn Raid on the Middle Class

The following was co-written with Roger Hickey.

Wednesday, the Presidential Deficit Commission's co-chairs released a radically right-wing budget proposal. They acted without any prior announcement, just three weeks before the entire Commission was scheduled to deliver its collective report. Consider it as a sneak attack on the middle class, a pre-dawn raid on the American dream.

Many things can and will be said about this draft proposal, but first and foremost it must be considered an admission of failure. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson were asked by the President to lead a commission that was to agree on a set of proposals most of its members could endorse. This proposal is their admission that they've failed, and it should be read with that failure of leadership in mind. more »

More »»


Richard Eskow's picture

Does Obama Really Want to Make Social Security Cuts Even the Tea Party Wouldn't Touch?

The President could be on the brink of making a serious mistake, one with grave implications for his political future and even graver implications for aging Americans. If he responds to this election by adopting the Deficit Commission's recommendation to cut Social Security, President Obama will be snatching catastrophe from the jaws of defeat. more »

More »»


Richard Eskow's picture

A Collegial Question for Peter Orszag (And Alan Simpson, and Alice Rivlin, And ...)

"The left," writes former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, "is stridently opposed to any serious discussion of Social Security reform." What's more, says Orszag, the same nebulous "left" is "adamantly opposed to restoring actuarial balance to Social Security now."

Here's a suggestion, inspired perhaps by this weekend's rally: Can't we stop characterizing one another and discuss the issues in a thoughtful and collegial manner? I'll accept a portion of the blame for being excessively "strident" in the past. So let's start again, collegially and respectfully, by concentrating on the issues and not the personalities.

Here's a good place to begin: There's a proposal on the table that addresses all of Mr. Oszag's concerns about Social Security in a simple, fair manner, by removing the earnings cap on payroll taxes (which is currently about $106,000). more »

More »»


Richard Eskow's picture

The Post-Election Game Plan: Cut Social Security, Soak the Middle-Class, and Keep Taxes Low For the Rich

Yesterday the Deficit Commission used the New York Times as a messenger service to tell politicians - and you - exactly what they intend to do if the election goes as expected. It's all laid out in black and white: They'll cut benefits, increase the financial burden on the middle class, and make sure that wealthy Americans aren't troubled by the kind of sacrifices everyone else will be expected to make.

This isn't guesswork or speculation. The Commissioners just told us. It's all there. more »

More »»


Richard Eskow's picture

Annoying Alan Simpson: The 310,000,001th Reason to Vote

Make no mistake: They're not just trying to roll back Social Security. They're trying to dismantle the entire New Deal, piece by piece. There are at least "310,000,000 Reasons to Vote," one for each and every American citizen. But there's also a 310,000,001th reason:

To piss off Alan Simpson.

That may not be the most high-minded motive for executing one's civic duty, but like they say: Whatever works. more »

More »»


Richard Eskow's picture

Cold Case File: Who Shot Down a 70-Year-Old Attack on Social Security?

Heard the one about the Social Security Trust Fund that holds nothing but "IOUs"? That phony claim goes back to at least 1939, when a rabidly anti-Roosevelt journalist named John T. Flynn used a colorful analogy about a tin box in a drawer in order to argue that Social Security was a "monstrosity." But where Flynn was simply mistaken, many of those who repeat his arguments today have more cynical motives.

Flynn's essay, The Social Security "Reserve" Swindle, contains all the same arguments we hear today: The government's just writing IOUs to itself. Social Security is "an offense against younger workers" (who would be about ninety years old now) that will give older generations a free ride. "The best thing to do with this monstrous child," wrote Flynn, would be to slay it at once ..."

Years later a group of people came together to write a comprehensive rebuttal to the anti-Social Security arguments thrown around by John T. Flynn and the hundreds who came after him. They took on all of the myths one by one, demolishing them with a passion that was but thinly concealed by the dryness of their prose.

More »»

The Challenge


PDF versionFrom the moment that President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act on August 14, 1935, conservatives have attacked and tried to dismantle the program. Alf Landon, the 1936 Republican presidential candidate, based his entire campaign on attacking Social Security and vowed to "repeal" it.

Today Social Security enjoys overwhelming popular support due to its success in alleviating poverty and providing income security to millions of Americans. Nonetheless, conservatives today are still bent on dismantling Social Security, claiming that the program is adding to the federal deficit and is essentially bankrupt. Neither claim is true, but that has not stopped conservative politicians from proposing such “solutions” as privatization—trading the stability of Social Security benefits for the roller-coaster of Wall Street. Others call for raising the retirement age, a way to mask significant cuts in benefits. Meanwhile, a White House commission on deficit reduction has also targeted Social Security for “reform,” even though Social Security shouldn’t even be on the commission’s agenda.

Social Security is not an “entitlement” that needs to be “cut”; it is a vital lifeline for millions that needs to be strengthened.

The Argument


Social Security is the federal government’s most successful and most appreciated anti-poverty program. It offers a secure retirement for most Americans as well as disability insurance to families in the event of the death or disability of a breadwinner. Its benefits, though modest, lift millions of Americans out of poverty. And, its administrative costs are less than one penny of every dollar spent.

Fears stoked by conservatives about a long-range funding gap are overblown. Currently, the Social Security trust fund has a $2.6 trillion accumulated surplus, which will grow to $4.2 trillion by 2025. Social Security could finance itself just fine – if the economy grows, people get back to work, and wages rise with rising productivity.

But if the economy continues to falter, the system could face a financing gap far in the future – more than a quarter of a century from now – and the gap would be very modest, the equivalent of the costs of maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans. We don’t have to raise the retirement age or otherwise cut the benefits of future retirees to close that gap.

Social Security is a promise to all Americans that has withstood the test of time and represents the best of American values – rewarding hard work, honoring our parents and caring for our neighbors. Its benefits should be increased, not cut.

The Obstacles


By law Social Security cannot borrow any money. By law Social Security cannot contribute to the deficit. But conservatives still target Social Security for cuts while ignoring the real causes of the federal deficit, such as the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Conservatives are using a disinformation campaign to justify turning Social Security into a bonanza for Wall Street. Several high-profile conservative politicians have embraced privatization, which would gamble America’s retirement savings on the stock market. It’s essentially the same plan that almost all of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted for in 2005, even if it is couched in different rhetoric because polls show the idea to be highly unpopular.

Social Security is also potentially threatened by the outsourcing of policy making to a White House National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. This closed-door commission is loaded with conservatives, and public statements made by many of its members show an unjustifiable obsession with gutting Social Security. Its deliberations are designed to produce a document that, if 14 of its 18 members agree, would be sent to Congress for an up-or-down vote with no amendments during Congress’ post-election lame-duck session. This sets up the potential, as The Nation's William Grieder puts it, to "offer Social Security as a sacrificial lamb to entice conservative deficit hawks into a grand bipartisan compromise" on deficits and taxes.

Progressive Solution


With many Americans having lost savings and investments in the financial collapse and more than half relying primarily on Social Security for their retirement, the last thing we should do is cut Social Security benefits.  With over 20 million people looking for full-time work, and many older workers displaced, raising the retirement age makes no sense.  Social Security should be strengthened, not cut.

If the economy remains stagnant and unemployment continues to be high, any projected shortfall in the Social Security trust fund can be covered almost entirely by requiring high-income workers to pay the same percentage of Social Security taxes as the rest of us (by lifting the cap on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax, now $106,800). There's no rush to impose a Draconian solution.

Fast Facts


Social Security did not cause the federal deficit.

  • Social Security has not contributed one dime to the federal deficit. In fact, Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus today that is projected to increase to $4.2 trillion in 2025.
  • The primary causes of the nation’s recent large deficits have been President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the economic downturn and the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
  • The government’s long‐term deficit challenge comes almost entirely from health-care costs. Medicare and Medicaid costs are projected to grow slower than private health-care costs, but still rise from about 5.3% to 17.2% of gross domestic product from 2009 to 2081, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Social Security costs are projected by actuaries to grow only from about 4.8% to 6.1% by 2035, and then decline to 5.9% of GDP in 2050 and remain there after that.

Social Security is not in crisis.

  • Claims that Social Security cannot pay its bills in 2010 are false. Social Security outlays will exceed tax revenues for the next two years, an unremarkable event that has occurred 15 times since 1956. Social Security will still run a $76.7 billion surplus in 2010 due to its investment income.
  • Social Security can pay all its bills in full through 2037. Even if Congress takes no action to close the long‐range funding gap, Social Security will still be able to pay at least 75% of promised benefits after 2037.

Public Pulse


Broad majorities oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to address the deficit:

Raising the retirement age is rejected by a two-to-one margin:

Privatization is opposed by overwhelming majorities:

There is broad support for increasing revenue to secure Social Security's long-term future:

 

Resources



Richard Eskow's picture

As the Aging Stoop to Their Labors, Prosperous Pundits Lecture Them About Sacrifice

The aging American workforce has been vilified a lot lately, in much the same way the poor were in previous decades. Politicians who once might have spread myths about "welfare queens" are now describing retired people as "greedy geezers." Not to be outdone, well-paid pundits are rushing to lecture people on their moral failings and urging them to rediscover the nobility of sacrifice. But sacrifice for whom, exactly, and to what end? It doesn't seem to matter - and that's the problem.

Fortunately, not everyone's joining the crusade. Today's shining example is John Leland from the New York Times, who took the time to review the data on aging workers. What's more, he even went out and talked to some of them. more »

More »»


Richard Eskow's picture

On the Stephanie Miller Show To Discuss Social Security & the Deficit Commission

I appeared on the Stephanie Miller Show yesterday with guest host John Fugelsang to discuss Social Security and the Deficit Commission.  He'd seen my piece on the fact that the Commission members who want to cut retirement benefits all have excellent retirement plans themselves, thanks to Uncle Sam (that is, us).  

more »

More »»