Hands Off Social Security

Don't Make Us Work 'Till We Die!

Dave Johnson — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:56:14 -0400

There was a time on this country when We, the People were in charge, and our government worked for us. Through our government we did things for each other and for our economy, and when we had economic success we paid back toward more such investment. Things are different today and We, the People are no longer in charge. In fact, We, the People are thought of now as "the help." And lately the Powers That Be have been thinking they aren't getting quite enough work out of us. So they want to make us Work 'Till We Die.

The country has a budget deficit caused by tax cuts for the rich, huge increases in military spending, wars, covering problems caused by the Great Recession, and interest on the Reagan/Bush debt. To address these deficits the Powers That Be are coming up with plans to raise the retirement age, eliminate Medicare and cut the rest of the things We, the People do for each other -- while, of course, dramatically cutting taxes on the rich.

In response the Strengthen Social Security campaign is launching Don't Make Us Work 'Til We Die -- a website, actions, video and petition.

Local Actions April 28!

Click here to find an event near you.

Virtual Rally!

If there is no event near you, you can participate in their Virtual Rally.

This is great. Print out a sign and take a picture of yourself holding the sign. Email it to: virtualrally@socialsecurity-works.org with your City & State in the subject line, and be part of the Virtual Rally.

Sign ideas:
* Don't Make Me Work 'Til I Die
* Don't Make My Kids to Work 'Til They Die
* Make Your Own

What Others Are Saying

Left In Alabama: Don't Make Us Work 'Til We Die,

There will be rallies in 18 states -- 52 of them at last count -- on April 27 and 28 where current retirees will demonstrate how hard or even impossible it would be for them to continue working at the jobs they retired from.

Digby: Don't Make Us Work Until We Die.

Evidently, this is the new fate for many more of the elderly. Between raising the retirement age, skimping on the benefits, wage stagnation and economic wipe-outs like the Great Recession, young and old alike will be competing for all those low paying jobs. But since three and four generations will all have to live under the same roof, perhaps they can come up with some sort of job share concept so that they can work in shifts and someone will be at home to take care of the children. As long as it doesn't inconvenience the employer, of course.

Richard Eskow at Ourfuture.org: Work 'Til You Die: The Alternate American Reality - And The Reality

The retirement age is already scheduled to increase, and raising it even more is nothing less than cruel. That idea's part of the political trend toward "austerity economics," a resurgent anti-government ideology that'sengendered a wave of enthusiastic - no, make that orgiastic prose - from well-fed pundits. Their display of almost snuff-movie-like excitement should have been predictable, but I found it shocking anyway.

AFL-CIO Now Blog: Tell Lawmakers, ‘Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die’,

There is a scary scenario in store if the Republican budget, drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, is ever implemented. Take a look at this new video from Strengthen Social Security, Don’t Cut It, that takes us to a new dimension where “politicians are cutting our Social Security and Medicare and forcing us work until we die.”

The Serlingesque video is part of a new campaign to fight back against the Republican budget and other proposals to raise the retirement age, turn Medicare over to Big Insurance and slash Medicaid for seniors, children and people with disabilities.

Next week on April 27 and 28 in more than 50 cities in 18 states, activists from the Strengthen Social Security, Don’t Cut It coalition—the AFL-CIO and the Alliance for Retired Americans are part of the coalition—will hold events at congressional district offices to tell their lawmakers hands off Social Security. Click here to find an event near you.

The Main Street blog

Everyone who has worked in a physically demanding job knows what increasing the retirement age will mean. It’s one thing to preach the necessity of this from behind a desk in a cushy office. It’s another thing to be a miner, nurse, truck driver, cook, carpenter, janitor, or a waiter at age 67 - if our bodies last that long. For those who are among the still unemployed/underemployed, and over the age of 55, the promise of Social Security in the future is what keeps us going. We can’t let them pull the rug out from under seniors who have worked long and hard, and paid in to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Dean Baker at CEPR: Why Do Real Men Want to Cut Social Security?

It really speaks volumes about the nature of politics in Washington that in order to be accepted as a serious participant in the budget debates, it is now necessary to affirm a willingness to cut Social Security. This is bizarre from many different angles.

RootsWire

BennyHollywood,

Blue Hampshire

Suburban Guerrilla

Ellen's Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog: Days of Action to Protect Social Security/Medicare,

April 27th and 28th will be days of action to protect Social Security and Medicare. The themes are "Don't Make Me Work Until I Die" and "Don't Make My Kids Work Until They Die." Here's the video:

... If you're ok with foregoing retirement and health care when you need it most so some CEO of a multinational can walk away with billions (trillions) and take his jobs to India, China and Pakistan, then go ahead and vote for Republicans and do nothing on April 27th and 28th, but if you want US jobs and a US middle class that provides for a dignified retirement, then join Strengthen Social Security for its events, virtually if you cannot make a meeting.

Crooks and Liars

Treehugger

susan the bruce

Dirigo Blue: SAVE THE DATE: Day of Action for Social Security: Don't Make Us Work 'Til We Die

Democratic Underground

Alliance for Retired Americans: Working 'Till We Die

Message To Congress: "Back Off Social Security"

Isaiah J. Poole — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 18:40:35 -0400

Under the slogans “Back Off Social Security” and “Hands Off Social Security,” more than 350 fired-up retirees and others packed a meeting room on Capitol Hill March 28, 2011, to hear from senators and program beneficiaries, and to demand that Congress reject benefit cuts, a retirement age increase, and privatization. The large public event happened as the battle heats up in Washington between those wanting to sacrifice Social Security as part of a deficit-reduction deal and those demanding that it not be cut. Senators participating in the rally included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sens. Tom Harkin,D-Iowa; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; Al Franken, D-Minn.; and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Republican Majority Leader Says Social Security "Cannot Exist"

Dave Johnson — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:38:53 -0400

By now you have heard that the Majority Leader Eric Cantor said that Social Security "cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."

At least they are out in the open about their plans.

So Campaign for America's Future wants to do something about it, and you can help. They are hoping to run an ad in Cantor's home district. This ad:

"We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."

Click here to help CAF get this ad on the air

If you follow the right's insider stuff -- their radio shows, their speeches to their own groups, their blogs, etc. -- you know this is what they say to each other all the time. But not when they think the public is paying attention.

But what they are doing is going directly after Social Security, Medicare and the rest of the things that We, the People (government) do to empower and protect each other. In the current round of budget cuts they snuck in cuts to the Social Security Administration, which manages the program, so they will unable to perform their duties and will look bad to the public.

The Campaign for America's Future has this TV ad that will let his constituents know about his extreme opposition to Social Security. They need your help to get it on the air.

Click here to help CAF get this ad on the air

Rep. Schakowsky Responds To Republican Call To Abolish Social Security

Dave Johnson — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:08:19 -0400

This morning Representative Jan Schakowsky responded to Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's statement that Social Security and Medicare "cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be." Schakowsky said,

“There are two stark visions of our country: One is Republican Leader Eric Cantor’s, in which millionaires and billionaires get massive tax breaks paid for by cutting Social Security and health care for seniors. Cantor’s vision is one in which those who have worked all their lives – who have paid into Social Security and Medicare in order to retire in dignity – would be forced to bear the burden of deficit reduction. ... The choices are clear and I believe that the American public – like the Democrats in Congress – will fight as hard as possible to protect the American values represented in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”

On a press call this morning, Schakowsky was joined by Edward Coyle, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, Eric Kingson, Co-chair, Strengthen Social Security Campaign and Tom McMahon, executive director, Americans United for Change. Coyle said,

“Eric Cantor and others are saying that Social Security is to blame for our budget deficit. That’s pure fiction, and a sleight of hand that makes no mention of tax cuts for the wealthy or big corporations like GE that pay no taxes. It’s time to stop the lies.”

Kingson added,

“Social Security belongs to the American people -- not to politicians in Washington like Majority Leader Cantor. It belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to the program. It should not be used as a piggy bank to provide tax cuts to the rich or bailouts to Wall Street. That may be who Majority Leader Cantor represents but it's not the vast majority of the American people who depend on Social Security.”

McMahon,

“This was no slip of the tongue. We’ve long since suspected Eric Cantor’s true intentions of going down a path towards abolishing Social Security and Medicare as we know them -- intentions that he may now regret saying out loud in public. ... These privatization schemes embraced by Cantor and Ryan are designed to benefit Wall Street bankers at the same time slash guaranteed Social Security benefits and leave seniors on Medicare at the mercy of the private insurance industry.”

You can listen to Cantor's comments during an NPR interview here.

** Campaign for America's Future will be running ads targeting Cantor in his home district over his comments about Social Security. Click here to keep the ads going! **

Cantor: Social Security "Cannot Exist" In The America "We" Want

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:54:30 -0400

He said what?

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor appears to have called for the eventual elimination of Social Security because it stands in the way of what "we" want America to be.

Here's the quote, from NPR's "Morning Edition" today:

I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those monies as their sole source of income. So we've got to protect today's seniors. But for the rest of us? For - you know, listen. We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.

"Now, wait a minute," you say. "Cantor was speaking off the cuff and didn't get his wording exactly right. Surely he didn't really mean to say what he's quoted as saying on NPR, right?"

Yeah, I thought of that too, so I scanned some recent quotes of Cantor speaking about Social Security. And everything that I could find with any level of specificity is along the lines of what Cantor is quoted as saying to the Stanton, Va., News Leader earlier this month.

On the federal level, House Republicans plan to introduce in the coming weeks a budget plan for the next fiscal year that would reduce spending in all areas — including entitlements. Medicaid, and particularly Medicare and Medicaid benefits promised to retirees, make up nearly half of federal expenditures, but have been politically difficult to cut.

Under the Republican plan, people 55 or older would get the Social Security and Medicare they expect. Those younger would not, Cantor said.

"For everyone else, 54 and younger, I think we are realizing that we've got to face facts," Cantor said. "The money's not there."

The Republican Study Committee, of which Cantor is a leading member, is expected to push a "rogue" budget proposal that will take a hatchet to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to balance the budget in 10 years. Their budget will make it clear that the America that they have in mind is an America willing to allow the elderly and economically vulnerable to fall through the cracks.

A big-name insurance company suggests you create your own "personal safety net," and this is what Cantor has in mind: People depending on the same lightly regulated Wall Street whose behavior wiped out trillions of dollars in private retirement savings in the last financial crash to keep them out of poverty in the future. The truth is that the "personal safety nets" of millions of middle-class households have already failed, and those of the poor could never have been knitted. But Social Security is not failing. It is working today to keep people out of poverty, and the keys to keeping it working for the next generation of retirees do not need to entail raising the retirement age, cutting benefits or forcing people into the hands of Wall Street gamblers.

And another thing: Who is this "we" that Cantor talks about, anyway? It does not include these people who depend on Social Security and were on Capitol Hill Monday fighting to protect it for future generations. In fact, it does not include a majority of Americans. This "we" could only be the "they" who scorn government and who resent the very idea of a social insurance program through which we as a society have pooled our resources to provide dignity to all those in the twilight of their lives.

** Campaign for America's Future will be running ads targeting Cantor in his home district over his comments about Social Security. Click here to keep the ads going! **

Social Security: Real People, Real Benefits

Terrance Heath — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:10:20 -0400

"This is not some abstract debate. This is about real people who live real lives." Those were the words of Wade Henderson, CEO of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, at the Strengthen Social Security press conference on Capitol Hill this afternoon. The press conference is part of Strengthen Social Security's push for Americans to call Senators and urge them to vote to protect Social Security.

"Real." It's a word that's been overuse in our political discourse, by politicians trying to distinguish between "real America" and the rest of us.

But as he moderated the press conference, Henderson introduced speaker after speaker whose stories illustrated his point that the debate over Social Security is about "real people who live real lives," who would face very real consequences if the GOP succeeds in cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, or privatizing the program altogether. As I listened to their stories, I remembered those of people I've known — just as "real" as anyone else's — whose lives would have been far difference without Social Security, and will be much different if the GOP has its way.

The facts, numbers and statistics about Social Security are readily available, and have been so well explained and analyzed by lots of people that I don't need repeat all that here. While those facts should be distributed and read far and while, after listening to the speakers at today's press conference, I think most Americans understand the importance of Social Security because of its impact in their own lives, and those of people they know and love. The numbers bear that out.

I've sometimes jokingly said that I'll never retire, but will probably "work until I fall into my grave." I'm only half kidding, not because I believe the hype about "fixing" Social Security, but because I'm afraid of what might happen to it if people like Rep. Paul Ryan get their hands on it. But for some people it's not a joke. It's real.

It's real for Pat Cotton, a 70-year-old clinical nurse's assistant from Virginia who talked about how she's still working full time in order to pay her bills. Even though she started receiving Social Security five years ago, she uses it as a "cushion" while she saves for the retirement she hopes to enjoy soon. Like millions of Americans, who watched their 401ks — their market-invested, retirement nest eggs — disappear when the market tanked in 2008, the 401k experiment has failed, as Dave Johnson noted.

So, how has the 1981 401K experiment worked out? It's 2009, and no one can afford to retire. Wealth is massively concentrated at the top. So maybe it didn't work out so well - for us. Pretty well for those at the top, though.

But I'm not advocating a return to corporate-funded pensions for their workers. I think we should tax corporate profits and put money into greatly expanding Social Security so everyone - not just people who work for corporations - can afford to live well when they are old. That would be the solution a democracy would choose.

Cotton also worries about her children, now all in their 50s, who have paid into Social Security and who may not receive the benefits they're due if the GOP succeeds in cutting benefits, or raising the retirement age.

It's real, too, for Sam — an employee at The Bagel Grove in Utica, NY; a family business owned by Annie Wadsworth and her husband, started by her husband's parents. Their business started with a pension plan, but had to convert to a 401k. Wadsworth, who spoke at the conference, related that Sam had jokingly told his wife, "If I die tomorrow, I want to be buried in my Bagel Grove uniform and hat."

Sam might have been joking, but Wadsworth explained that Sam — who works the night shift, standing in front of a 400-degree oven as part of the team that makes about 500 dozen bagels — is nearing retirement age and "doesn't have a good set of lungs." For workers like Sam, Wasdworth said, cuts in benefits could mean working until he literally "drops into his grave" wearing his Bagel Grove hat and uniform.

Wadsworth invited lawmakers who are eager to cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age for workers like Sam to come up to the Bagel Grove and do Sam's job for a day.

Rajini Raj, a registered nurse from Silver Spring, Md., extended the same invitation to lawmakers to come and do her job for a day. But, they'd better have strong backs, as Raj explained:

Nurses lift 1.8 tons every day, mostly in transferring and repositioning patients. That means many of work with back pain, and 12 % of nurses leave nursing because they are no longer physically able to do the work...I know I won't be able to lift 300+ pound patients when I am 68 years old.

As Raj spoke, I thought of my niece, who's also a nurse, and how GOP proposals to cut Social Security would impact her by the time she reached retirement age. If she's among the 12% who leave the field due to injuries, would disability benefits be available to her?

Raj also spoke of her parents, who worked for almost 40 years, and are on Social Security, the hardship they they would face if they could no longer count on Social Security to help make ends meet, and her own difficulties if she has to help them while saving for her own retirement. As Raj, spoke of her parents, I though of my own mother. Throughout their 50 years of marriage before my father's death, she was a stay-at-home parent while we were growing up, and after we left home put her energies into running the "food bank" at her church, and other volunteer activities.

Before she married, my mom studied cosmetology and opened her own beauty shop. But At 76 years old, it's unlikely she'd be able to go back. As a widow, she collects the benefits my dad paid into Social Security. I wondered what would happen to her if those benefits were reduced, and she herself has expressed that fear to me.

Would she lose her independence, and have to rely upon her children to support her? Between the three of us, how well would we be able to afford that?

Story after story from "real people" emphasized Wade Henderson's point. Even such luminaries as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sens. Tom Harkin, Al Franken and Richard Blumenthal drove home the point with told stories of how Social Security benefited their families. Reid's grandmother held on to her independence thanks to her "old-age pension check." Harkin's widowed father, who bought a farm and lost it in the Great Depression, raised three boys to adulthood with the help of Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits helped Al Franken's mother-in-law, widowed at 29, raise five children to be productive citizens as an adult.

Their stories underscored Henderson's point about what's at stake in the current debate over Social Security, but Sen. Bernie Sanders reminded everyone what it was like before Social Security: "Before Social Security, 50% of senior citizens lived in poverty. That was true for the disabled, too. If you were disabled, you were on your own. If you were widowed or orphaned, you were on your own and left to beg. This number is still too high, but only 10% of seniors live in poverty today."

The difference between how and then is a promise made and a promise kept to working people in America, as Reid summed up, "If a person worked hard and contributed to Social Security, America would make sure they could retire with dignity. That promise, made 75 years ago, is called Social Security — the most successful social program in history of the world."

As I said earlier, the numbers and statistics on Social Security are important to know, but if we look at our own lives and those of people we know and love, we can see every day the benefits of that promise, and the importance of keeping it.

Tuesday and Wednesday: Call To Save Social Security

Dave Johnson — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:28:15 -0400

Call Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday!

The following is from the Strengthen Social Security coalition, of which Campaign for America's Future is part:

We need you to call your Senators and demand that they vote for the Sanders/Reid Social Security Protection Amendment.

Senator Sanders and Majority Leader Reid are leading the fight in the Senate to protect Social Security from drastic cuts.

Their amendment simply says:

Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries should not be cut and Social Security should not be privatized as part of any legislation to reduce the Federal deficit.

Call your Senators RIGHT NOW at 1-866-251-4044. You’ll be given a choice of which of your state’s two senators to be connected with. Call BOTH if you have the time. It only takes a minute each.

Tell the person who answers the phone:

I am a voter/constituent living in [your state]. I am calling to tell the Senator:
I oppose all cuts to Social Security and
I urge them to vote yes on the Sanders/Reid Social Security Protection Amendment.

Please take the time for this very important effort today. This is for all of us who depend on Social Security.

Call Today: 1-866-251-4044.

AFTER YOU CALL:

Stay involved, the threat to Social Security continues. Please click to stay involved in the fight.

Harry's Fight

Richard Eskow — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:01:46 -0400

One group of senators is determined to cut Social Security benefits. Another is equally determined to stop them. And nearly two-thirds of the Senate signed a letter that took a clear stand in favor of ... well, it's not exactly clear what they want. It's been a battle royale on Capitol Hill.

Now Harry Reid is stepping into the ring.

Reid was an amateur boxer in college, although his current job as Senate Majority Leader usually requires him to act more like a referee. It looks like that may be about to change.

The Defunders

First came the Six.

The media calls them the "Gang of Six." Reporters often describe their entitlement-cutting efforts with lavish and inaccurate adjectives like "courageous." and even "brave." and make generous use of the (undoubtedly consultant-drafted) euphemism, "entitlement reform" - instead of using the more accurate description, "Social Security and Medicare cuts."

("Entitlement reform" is an Orwellian term, in our opinion. Since when do you "reform" something by slashing it?)

The Gang's efforts are often called "centrist" and "bipartisan," too, even though a recent poll reaffirmed earlier figures showing that 77% of Americans are opposed to cutting Social Security. (Earlier polling showed that solid majorities in both parties opposed the kind of cuts the "Gang" is advocating (that includes 75% of Republicans and 76% of Tea Partiers).

That would place the Gang well to the right of the public in general, and even of most Republicans. Nevertheless, the Gang's trying to a develop a budget that includes the Draconian cuts to Social Security and Medicare proposed by two individuals named Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.

(That's another bit of Newspeak we find ourselves having to correct over and over: The press insists on describing the personal proposal put forward by these two gentlemen as "the deficit commission proposal" or better yet, the "bipartisan deficit commission report." Fact check: The commission never put out a report; it deadlocked and failed to complete its assignment. A more accurate name for these recommendations is "some opinions that two guys have about the deficit.")

For a while it looked like the Six, backed by a well-oiled and highly financed publicity machine, were gaining the upper hand.

Bernie and the Jets

Then another gang took the field.

A couple of weeks ago Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders began organizing a Defend Social Security Caucus to resist any attempts to cut the program. It now includes 19 senators. As The Hill reported, Sanders' original Social Security Protection Amendment was co-sponsored by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Begich, Debbie Stabenow, Richard Blumenthal, and Daniel Akaka.

The Gang of Six, aspiring to be Social Security's defunders, had just met its defenders.

Definite Maybe

Here's where it gets fuzzy. A group of 64 senators—32 Democrats and 32 Republicans—sent a letter to the president urging him to engage personally in deficit discussions. The letter said that ".a bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission." (The words "Fiscal Commisson" must have been a clerical error. They clearly meant to say "... a package based on some opinions two guys have about the deficit." See above.)

The letter goes on to say that the Gang of Six initiative "represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt." The Senators seemed to make their intentions plain: "Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform."

The Simpson/Bowles "what two guys think" proposal cuts retirement benefits, raises the retirement age even more than it's already scheduled to be raised, and imposes draconian cuts on Medicare—all while lowering the top income tax bracket. (That's right: They want to lower taxes in a deficit reduction plan.) And the letter describes it as the "foundation" for a potential agreement.

Cheap Grace

A number of people, including E. J. Dionne, Ezra Klein and Jason Linkins, have pointed out that 64 Senators can pass a filibuster-proof law. That's why they're called a supermajority. If they wanted a Simpson/Bowles act, they could have passed one.

Like they used to say in the old neighborhood: Who's stoppin' ya?

Dionne strikes exactly the right chord by invoking theologian Dietrich Boenhoffer's phrase, "cheap grace." And Dionne's probably right to suspect that "different senators are saying quite different things in signing this letter." Some, for example, may have been using the letter as an opportunity to introduce tax increases into the negotiation process.

But that's not what the letter says: It says the Simpson/Bowles "coupla guys" plan should be the framework for deficit reduction talks - and that plan calls for severe entitlement cuts. (For our sci-fi take on this letter, see "A Letter From 64 Senators ... In an Alternate Universe.")

It's true that the letter also says "we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission's recommendations." [Correction: The phrase "the Commission's recommendations" should read "suggestions made by a couple of guys with opinions about the deficit."] But entitlement cuts aren't a minor detail in the Simpson/Bowles plan: They're at its heart. By contrast, the Senators' letter uses the phrase "tax reform," which is often used as a euphemism for the tax giveaways for the wealthy also proposed by Simpson and Bowles.

That makes it disappointing to see names like John Kerry, Sherrod Brown, and Al Franken on the list. And it's downright strange to see the names of Sens. Begich, Stabenow, and Blumenthal on the letter, since they also cosponsored the original Sanders amendment.

Whatever these Democrats intended, the net effect was a huge propaganda victory for those who want to cut Social Security - one that could have shifted the momentum in the cutting crew's favor.

Along Came Harry

Enter Harry Reid. As The Hill reported, reported, Sen. Reid told Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC that he's not willing to consider changes to the program for at least twenty years. ""Two decades from now, I'm willing to take a look at it," he said. "But I'm not willing to take a look at it right now."

(Note: Harry Reid will be 91 in twenty years - so apparently the retirement age isn't a personal fight for him.)

The Hill observed that "Reid's remarks may well signal a death knell for hopes that lawmakers might be able to accomplish Social Security reform this Congress." [Note: By "Social Security reform" they mean "Social Security cuts." We ain't gonna stop doing this.]

The Hill's report continues:

Republicans in the House are expected to include reforms [correction: they mean 'cuts' - told ya we wouldn't stop] in their budget next month, and some centrist Democrats in the Senate have joined with Republicans ... Those lawmakers have said that changes to the program such as raising the retirement age, removing the cap on taxable income under the payroll tax, or changing the way benefits are indexed to inflation should be on the table.

Reid rejected all of those.

Harry Reid isn't keeping a low profile about his new position. He's joined with Sanders to sponsor a revised "sense of the Senate" resolution stating that "Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries should not be cut and that Social Security should not be privatized as part of any legislation to reduce the Federal deficit."

Sanders intends to offer this amendment on a small business bill as early as next week. and he's promised to try to add it to any other legislation moving through the Senate until every senator declares what side they are on. The amendment draws a clear line in the sand: It says that Social Security cuts should not be included in a deficit-reduction deal because Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.

Corner Man

Reid's now serving as a kind of corner man, overseeing the efforts of Sanders and his Caucus, while also putting himself into the ring in a very public way. He will appear at a "Protect Social Security Press Event" on Monday to kick off his efforts. In response, citizens' groups are offering support [1] with actions like the "Support Social Security Call-In Day," which is scheduled for Monday and Tuesday.[2]
.
Reid's Social Security stance is striking in its Shermanesque clarity. It lacks the the whiffley/waffley phrasing so many Democrats have been using lately - as, for example, when the President says he will "not accept an approach that slashes benefits." That elastic language leaves the door open for all sorts of other action verbs: cutting, reducing, eviscerating ...

But while others make vague declarations, Reid's position seems clear: No cuts.

The Next Round

What's next?

The Gang of Six have too much to gain personally to give up now, and the Social Security Caucus seems equally determined. As they do battle, a lot of people in Washington will keep equivocating, doing everything they can to avoid taking a stand until the last possible moment.

But that just became more difficult. Reid's in a position to insist that votes be cast. And by taking a clear stand himself, he's putting pressure on others to do the same. That means battle lines will be drawn. People will take sides, or change sides, or try to stay on the sidelines.

Others may bob and weave, but it looks like Harry Reid has found his fight.
______________

[1] Many of these events are being organized by the Strengthen Social Security campaign. I am affiliated with that effort through the Campaign For America's Future.

[2] Activists are urging people to call their Senators (1-866-251-4044) on March 29 and March 30 urging them to protect Social Security.

This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

Washington Post On Social Security: Long On Hyperbole, Short On Facts

Blue Girl — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:27:18 -0400

Journamalism in 2011 is long on hyperbolic headlines and short on actual facts.

If you go to The Washington Post business section this morning, you will see what I mean. Lori Montgomery has turned in, and an editor has seen fit to publish, 700 or so words of ignorant, unresearched blather and nonsense under the headline Social Security splinters Democrats in debate over reining in budget deficits. And the article lives down to the headline. It is a journalistic chimera of unsourced allegations and speculation, innuendo, conflated information and mindlessly regurgitated talking points asserted as fact.

With momentum building to rein in record budget deficits, Democrats are sharply divided over whether to tackle popular but increasingly expensive safety-net programs for the elderly, particularly Social Security.

Social Security does not contribute one penny to the deficit. It is a self-funded program and it is solvent until 2039 if we do nothing, indefinitely if we make a minor tweak and raise the earnings cap.

A growing number of Democratic lawmakers say they are willing to consider controversial measures such as raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for wealthier seniors as part of a compromise with Republicans to cut spending on the programs and stabilize them for future generations.

Really? Name them. Which Democrats are saying that they will consider these fundamental changes to the program that keeps millions of senior citizens out of poverty and enjoying a decent quality of life and living independently? Name them. If you can't name them on the record, don't make implications. That's not a tool of the journalist; that's a tool of the propagandist.

It is flat-out lying to imply that Social Security is responsible for the deficit when it is self-funded and solvent for decades and can be made so for generations to come simply by raising the cap on the income that the Social Security tax is collected on. Right now, every dollar you and I make, we pay Social Security taxes on. But people who make over $106,800 don't pay anything on the money they make beyond that amount. It doesn't matter if it's a surgeon who works long hours and is underpaid at $300,000 or a Wall Street parasite stealing millions from people like that surgeon, they don't pay Social Security taxes on the money they earn over $106,800. If that was changed, we would have indefinite solvency. Problem solved. Decades in advance.

But senior lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) are lining up against them, arguing that tampering with Social Security would harm the elderly -- as well as the political fortunes of Democrats hoping to maintain control of the White House and the Senate in 2012.

Nice! Way to go! That was a classic move there at the end, implying that Democrats only really care about their own political fortunes, not the quality of life of their elderly constituents. They just want to stay in office, and they're sleazy enough to bribe grandma to do it. Too bad it's been in use since at least 1983 and has grown stale and trite and only the lasiest and most inept of shills bothers with it anymore. Most decent hacks worth their salt would be ashamed to trot it out.

The dispute, long simmering behind the scenes, is poised to erupt into public view. Reid has scheduled a rally Monday on Capitol Hill to show “support for Social Security and opposition to cuts in benefits,” according to an e-mail sent to liberal activists. And House Democrats this week signaled their intention to use Social Security as a cudgel in next year’s elections by launching an ad campaign accusing 10 GOP lawmakers in swing districts of plotting to cut the program.

Long-simmering? Really? Hmmm. I have a friend or two on the hill and talk to a couple of congressional staffers for a couple of Missouri politicians who are right in the thick of every tussle, and if there was a "long-simmering" dispute that was about to blow up, I would know it. I haven't heard anything, but just to be sure, I called one of those friends this morning and asked. He literally chuckled and said, in a Seinfeld-esque sort of way, "I don't think so."

I laughed too and said, "Well, I figured if there was you would have told me," to which he responded "definitely."

I am most impressed, though, with the way Montgomery manages to make the fact that the Democrats are going to run ads that tell the truth about the Republican positions on Social Security -- sound like they're playing dirty. Since when is it sleazy to point out to the voters that a sitting representative said of Social Security "I don't like it"? The examples are repleat and using them isn't in any way sleazy.

Meanwhile, Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank, plans to release a memo Friday arguing that the deficit has emerged as an uncommonly powerful political issue and that 2012 voters will reward the party that takes bold action to restrain government spending -- including overhauling Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. “In our view, Republicans are winning this fight,” the memo says, according to an advance copy provided to The Washington Post. “They are winning by taking on an issue that voters believe is serious; they are winning on candor; and they are winning by being on the side of reform. Democrats — who ran on change — are quickly becoming the status quo party on the budget.” In an interview, Third Way policy director and former Schumer aide Jim Kessler said, “There’s a conventional view right now that [entitlement spending] is an issue that shouldn’t be touched within the Democratic Party, that we should wait for Republicans to act and trap them.” “... Our view is, that might work in a normal time. But this isn’t a normal time,” he said. “We think it’s more dangerous politically not to be in this debate than to be in it.”

Of course. I should have known from the tone that the spineless sellouts of Third Way -- they are not Democrats, they are what we used to call Rockefeller Republicans -- would pop up halfway through, and whadya know? Halfway through, they become the focus of the entire article. Here's a bit of free advice for Third Way and Ms. Montgomery...Sometimes everybody hates you not because you are doing something right, but because you are the very epitome of "wrong." This is the case with Third Way. Even mentioning them is a conversation ender. So is conflating Medicare and Medicaid with Social Security. So there's two strikes. The only reason to keep reading now is to see just how deep she can manage to dig this spectacular hole she's furiously toiling away at.

How Democrats resolve the dispute could affect not only the party’s political fortunes but also the future of talks aimed at developing a bipartisan strategy for stabilizing the national debt. With a critical vote looming later this year to raise the legal limit on government borrowing past $14.3 trillion, six senators from both parties are working to come up with a debt reduction plan that could win broad support -- and Republicans consider Social Security a key part of the solution.

Did she not get the memo? The grand bargain sellout is dead. And as for the debt ceiling, well, that's Boehner's problem. He's the one that needs to get the votes together. If the Democrats have any sense and political savvy, they will call the bluff of the Republicans who are blustering about default if Social Security isn't cut. The freshmen Republicans are not as "independent" as they have sold themselves to be. One half of the Republicans in Congress (and at least a third of the Democrats) are a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, and the other half of the Republican caucus is the government affairs division of Koch Industries. No matter who is controlling the strings of the Republican Marionettes, they won't be letting the country default on our debts. They will be brought to heel before we default.

Social Security is the single largest federal program, dispensing about $700 billion last year to nearly 60 million people, the vast majority of them retirees. Since the program’s creation in 1935, the cost of Social Security benefits has been entirely covered by payroll taxes paid by current workers. This year, however, payroll tax revenues are projected to fall $45 billion short of covering benefits, and the problem is projected to grow as the number of retirees balloons compared with the number of working adults.

Good grief, I get tired of singing this tune. Social Security is a separate, self-funded entity that has nothing to do with the deficit. There is no Social Security crisis. Over and over again, the Congressional Budge Office issues reports that find the Social Security trust fund, without changing a thing, will be able to make full payouts through 2039 -- it should also be noted that the full payout projections have been pushed downward by the economic downturn of the last couple of years, and those numbers should start moving the other way as the economy recovers. And if that isn't the case, we have a lot bigger problems than Social Security coming down the pike.

And even if the trust fund were to run out, Social Security would still be in pretty good shape. First of all, the trust fund is a relatively recent creation. It was established in 1983, three years before the baby boomers started turning forty, to deal with the demographic bulge headed Social Security's way in 2011. The last boomers will retire in 2029, 10 years before the trust fund is currently projected to be depleted. Essentially, when the trust fund runs dry, it will coincide with the fact that it's mission will be, for the most part, complete. It will have eased the strain caused by the retirement of the baby boom. The depletion of the Social Security trust fund is not a pending disaster, it's by design. The fact of the matter is, in case you are one of the people in this country to whom facts matter, Social Security is a self-funding entity, independent of the general fund. It funds itself entirely through payroll taxes, and so long as payroll taxes are collected, retirees will get their checks. The only way that changes is if Congress acts to stop collecting payroll taxes or to outright abolish the program.

Democrats have traditionally defended the program, but even some liberal lawmakers now say changes in the benefit structure are required. Last week, 32 Senate Democrats joined 32 Senate Republicans on a letter in support of a broad-based deficit reduction effort that includes changes to entitlement programs. One of the letter’s authors, Sen. Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.), acknowledged that polls show people are overwhelmingly opposed to cutting Social Security and Medicare when asked about the programs individually. But, he said, they also want a plan to control spending that requires “everybody to put something on the table. ... I am absolutely convinced if we put a comprehensive plan in front of people, they would cheer from the rooftops.” (Bloggers aside: I wonder what context of the quote was erased by that elipses...don't you?) Reid spokesman Jon Summers dismissed that argument. “Senator Reid doesn’t believe that the budget should be balanced on the backs of America’s seniors, plain and simple,” he said.

Good grief...ninety-ninth verse, same as the first...Social Security is a separate entity, independent of the general fund. Medicaid and Medicare are not. Forget about Social Security. Put it over here in a lock box, as Al Gore said, and Just. Forget. About. It. Where the debt and the deficit are concerned, Social Security is off the table because it did nothing to make the crisis. Tax cuts and George Bush driving the economy into the ditch are what made the crisis. Social Security has kept it from being worse by buffering seniors from the vagaries of the market and the larger economy. I don't know about you, but I get a lot of peace of mind knowing that my mother is not going to end up living with me because she's broke.

*****

This post originally appeared at Show Me Progress and is part of a series I am writing as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations dedicated to preserving and strengthening Social Security.

Conservatives Tell Liberals Why They Should Support Cuts to Social Security

Dean Baker — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:21:21 -0400

Showing the sort of balanced journalism that we have come to expect from the Washington Post, its oped page featured a column by Robert Pozen, a financial industry executive and proponent of Social Security privatization, telling liberals why they should support cuts to Social Security. The gist of Mr. Pozen's argument is that Social Security is becoming less progressive over time because the gap in life expectancies between higher paid workers and lower paid workers is growing.

Furthermore, because of growing wage inequality, a larger share of wage income is escaping the Social Security tax. In addition, Pozen tells us that the structure of retirement income subsidies is highly regressive since the bulk of the tax benefits go to high income earners.

So, how do we fix the situation? Maybe improve health care for the bottom half of wage earners (other countries don't have the same gap as the United States)? Nope, Mr. Pozen doesn't want that to be on the agenda of liberals.

Maybe we should try to restructure the economy to reverse the policies that have led to the upward redistribution of wage income over the last three decades. Nope, Mr. Pozen doesn't want that to be on the agenda of liberals.

Maybe we should reverse the structure of retirement saving subsidies so that this is more progressive. Nope, Mr. Pozen doesn't want that to be on the agenda of liberals.

How about raising the cap for the wages subject to the Social Security tax. No, Mr. Pozen tells us that Congress won't do that.

No, the best way that Mr. Pozen can think of for making Social Security more progressive is by cutting benefits for people earning $40,000 a year and higher. Yes, this has been the big problem the country is facing. School teachers, construction workers, and office clerks are getting too much money. We better take away their Social Security benefits so we can make this a fairer society. All good liberals would agree with that.

Remember you can read this only in the Washington Post.

Originally posted at Beat The Press