Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Wall Street TARP Gang Wants to Take Away Your Social Security
Just over two years ago, the Wall Streeters were running around
Congress and the media saying that if they don't immediately get $700
billion the world will end. Since they own large chunks of both, they
quickly got their money. 
Even more important than the hundreds of billions of loans issued through the TARP was the trillions of dollars of loans and guarantees from the Fed and the FDIC. This money came with virtually no strings attached. It kept Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America and many others from collapsing. As a result, folks like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein are again pocketing tens of millions a year in wages and bonuses, instead of walking the unemployment lines. Instead, 15 million ordinary workers are being told to just get used to being unemployed; it's the "new normal."
But wait, it gets worse. The thing about Wall Streeters is that no
matter how much money you give them, they always want more. Now they are
using their political power and control over the media to attack Social
Security.
This effort is being led by billionaire investment banker Peter Peterson. Mr. Peterson has personally profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from the "fund managers' tax subsidy," an obscure provision of the tax code that allows billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than schoolteachers and firefighters. However, Peterson believes in giving back. He has committed $1 billion to an effort that is intended to take away the Social Security benefits that people have worked and paid for.
As part of this effort, Peterson set up a whole new foundation, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. He and/or his foundation created a "news service," the Fiscal Times, which is intended to promote the view that we have no choice but to cut Social Security. The Fiscal Times has entered into agreements with the Washington Post and other credible newspapers to provide material.
Peterson is also funding the creation of a high school curriculum which is intended to tell our children that the in the future the country will be too poor to finance Social Security. He funded a silly exercise called "America Speaks," which was supposed to convince an assembly of selected participants that we must cut Social Security after a daylong immersion in Peterson-style propaganda. (The people didn't buy it.) And now his crew is spending $20 million on an ad campaign to convince people the world will end if we don't cut Social Security.
Attacks on Social Security have been fended off in the past and it is possible that this one will be too. It is an incredibly popular and successful program. It does exactly what it was supposed to do. It provides a modest income to the retired and disabled, and their families, to ensure that people who have spent their lives working will not fall into poverty. It is also extremely efficient, with administrative costs that are less than 1/20th as large as the costs of private insurers.
It also has very little fraud. We know this because earlier this year the Washington Post made a big point of hyping mistaken payments to federal employees than involved less than 0.01 percent of Social Security spending. If substantial fraud did exist, the Washington Post wouldn't have to hype small change to try to discredit the program.
The really incredible part of this story is that we should be talking about increasing Social Security benefits. Benefits are quite low by international standards. The portion of wage income replaced by Social Security is considerably lower than the retirement benefit provided by the systems in Australia, Canada, Germany and most other wealthy countries.
As a result, many of the retirees who are dependent almost entirely on Social Security have incomes that are only slightly above the poverty line. A modest increase in benefits could make a big difference in these people's standard of living.
In addition, the near retirees, the people directly in the gun sights of the Wall Street TARPers, have just seen most of their wealth destroyed by the collapse of the housing bubble. The Wall Streeters now want to kick them yet again, by taking away Social Security benefits that they have already paid for.
If Congress and the media worked for the public, we would be debating Wall Street speculation taxes right now. Insofar as we need to do something about the deficit in the longer term, taxing Wall Street speculation is a far more economic desirable route than taking away the Social Security benefits that ordinary workers have already paid for. We could easily raise more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade with a broadly based speculation tax than would have almost no impact on anyone except the Wall Street crew.
Even the IMF is now pushing higher taxes on the Wall Street types, recognizing the enormous waste and rents in the financial sector. But the media and Congress do not respond to economic reality, they respond to money. And Peter Peterson and the Wall Street crew are not paying for an honest discussion of the country's fiscal and economic problems. They are financing a rigged debate that is intended to result to even more money flowing to Wall Street and less to those who work for a living.
- Posted in
119 Comments so far
Show Alland Obama is their only too willing servant.
Yes, Obama has on several occassions told the world that "everything is on the table with respect to deficit reduction". He should have said that Social Security is not on the table because it never contributed to the deficit...it is a stand alone program.
On the 75th anniversary of Social Security Obama told the world that "Republicans want to privatize social security", not mentioning that he stacked his deficit reduction commission with Peterson and others who are pushing to privatize Social Security.
If Obama was a leader who really wants change he would have used the annivarsary as an opportunity to tell the world he was pushing to increase the cap on Social Security contributions that would result in higher benefits for all recipients.
raydelcamino sez: "(Obama) should have said that Social Security is not on the table because it never contributed to the deficit...it is a stand alone program.
***
That's the dirty little secret memory-holed by the Assimilated Press, rarely touched on even in "progressive" radio programs and, indeed, left out of this piece.
Our falling sky du jour is The Budget Deficit, which will destroy Chicken Little and his entire flock if not addressed with radical and immediate slashing of "entitlement programs".
The Cat Food Commission could eradicate Social Security entirely and it would not trim the deficit one cent.
The budget deficit is what funds the Pentagram/spy agencies/Israel. It was Reagan who initiated the huge Federal budget deficits, simultaneously increasing funding of the Pentagram/spy agencies. The Pentagram is funded by the Treasury bond proceeds, the national debt. Admiral Mullen in August declared that the national debt, which funds the Pentagram, is a threat to national security therefore it is the Pentagram spending that is a threat to nation security, admitted by Admiral Mullen. American taxpayers are funding a threat to national security, the Pentagram/spy agencies, ostensibly to protect us from threats to national security, whether real, imagined, concocted or conjured up to instill imagined fears to the mindlessness American public, whom don't know and/or know how to discern thoughts from facts. The purpose of the Pentagram is to protect the worldwide investments of the WEALTHY PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS some of whom[persons SCOTUS]don't pay USG taxes but derive the benefits of the Pentagram USG protection racket based on the mafia protection rackets. Pay your taxes to fund a security risk, the Pentagram[mafioso], or risk having your security violated by some unnamed mafioso, whether real, imagined, concocted or just conjured up to instill fear.
Right on, Ray! Yes, increasing the cap is the obvious solution. So obvious, it is rarely mentioned.
The problem is the Randian 'philosophy' of objectivism which is used to trump anything that can be construed as Socialism, especially one as effective and efficient as SS.
Yes, but here in america, we have the golden rule. The ass-clown with the gold makes the rules!
On this beknighted globe that would be the bilderbergers, they have the gold, and they have a plan. Get rid of 6billion usless eaters who are sucking up too many resources, and making too much of a mess.
With six-billion gone there will be around 500.000 left, the bilderburgers of course and their lackeys to serve them. What a beautiful world it will be for the deserving few.
>^^<
Well said sir!
yes ! thank you to all citing Obama's role in this mother of all cons
a great deal of the pushback will be getting folks to not fall for the Good Cop/Bad Cop set up the WH is playing here and not be constantly distracted by the "privatization" red herring
as always, thank you Dean Baker
Yes, it's time to emigrate or secede.
Get your escape routes/ places in order... the s.s. amerika IS sinking; rearranging the deck chairs will do no good; its a done deal... the fascist amerikan empire WILL slide into the abyss !
The only safe place will be the other side of the solar system. Maybe in the asteroid belt.
>^^<
This is the logical next step for the right wing democrats that have become multi-millionaires working for huge corporate interests and who are called moderates by the corrupt corporate media have started to work with republican right wingers to promote the weakening of this program which is desperately needed by the struggling poor and middle class. All the reactionary elements within the democratic party including the still bitter neocon faction that backed Hillary Clinton are undermining the already weak president pushing him farther and farther to the right in domestic and foreign policy. Given these facts we can look forward to a total capitulation to the right wing agenda dressed up as compromise.
Yes, Obama was tickled pink when the Republicans regained control of the House.
Now he can blame the success of his regressive agenda on the Republicans.
Exactly. And, the Powers that Be are making it ever more apparent (to those who are paying attention) that the whole political system has become a scam to ensure that their puppets on both sides of the aisle are just that - puppets.
The script for the puppets is to change sides on issues every 4-6 years to keep the majority of the People confused and, in effect, to keep voting against their own interests.
Thank you, Dean Baker, for saying, over and over again, that Social Security has been paid for by working Americans. Of course, the employers have contributed as well. I appreciate it that you resisted the temptation to call Social Security and Medicare "entitlement programs" as so many continue to do.
On TV and radio, including public television and radio, I continuously hear pundits attacking Social Security and Medicare as "the biggest government expenditures, which must be trimmed", or some version of that verbage. I don't know where they get this "government spending" notion. Government does not pay for social security, although government has had the privilege of robbing and raping the program, replacing the money with worthless paper.
These attacks are a part of the global move to strip the working class of everything except low hourly wages, toward global serfdom, with the moving around of jobs to the most desperate work forces in the world. Multinational corporations want workers stripped of rights, safety, wealth and retirement prospects in order to be eligible for their crappy jobs.
People who think they are "conservatives" think that we will stop paying into Social Security if it is discontinued or dismantled. I'm surrounded by small time right wingers who drool over the idea that we'll take home the money that usually goes into social security. They are so wrong. We will pay, and pay and pay. The difference will be in whether we feather our retirement nests with those payments, or pad the pockets of wall street billionaires with it.
Just so friend. Thanks for articulating it so well.
The long term nature of collecting and saving wisely can make any good program feel like an entitlement program to both the individual and the outsider. My husband and I have been working on introducing a course to our local community college titled Social Security 101 after taking great pains in unbrainwashing our daughter out of "personal accounts".
"I'm surrounded by small time right wingers who drool over the idea that we'll take home the money that usually goes into social security. They are so wrong."
This reminds me of something my Dad told me once. He used to work for construction companies in NYC. He said a lot of small contractors would hire immigrants (usually from Europe - this was 40 years ago) and, to "do them a favor" would pay them in cash. That way, the guys were told, they would not "lose" money to Social Security or Workmens' comp. That was fine until they were laid off or got hurt. Then they were out on the street.
Pete Petersen is worse than the Koch brothers. He is ultra-wealthy and old. He is going to die soon, so why does he want to destroy the lives of so many people?
The small time right wingers who drool because they will take home more money in many cases will be taking home less or no money because if Social Security is privatized millions of Americans will delay or cancel retirement (we are already seeing this result from the 2008 meltdown, Obamacare inflation, etc.). Every American that does not retire prevents a younger American from getting their job.
If you think the US unemployment rate is high now, wait until Obama privatizes Social Security.
Among the university engineering students I mentor, the only graduates getting jobs during the past 3 years are the ROTC students being dispatched to Ir-Af-Pak. The unemployment rate is highest for young Americans and they will be harmed more than any other age group when Obama privatizes Social Security.
"Among the university engineering students I mentor, the only graduates getting jobs during the past 3 years are the ROTC students being dispatched to Ir-Af-Pak."
Yep, and where I live, it's the military families and government contractors that live in the posh houses with swimming pools. If it's guns or butter, right now it's best to be ready to sling that gun over your shoulder if you want to eat.
It brings me to another pet peeve of mine. All the ugly voices calling for reduction of our deficit by cutting Social Security and Medicare are the same voices calling for continued tax cuts for the wealthy in order to "create jobs". I seem to hear it a hundred times a day, and that's just on the radio in the car on the way to and from work.
Among both the democrats and the republicans, there are no true conservatives, which, believe it or not, is what I am. I don't want a government that "creates jobs". I don't want a corporate welfare state that masquerades as a free market economy. In a real free market economy, giant corporations wouldn't merge to become even bigger, shut down their competition, move jobs abroad, attack worker and employer paid (and time honored) programs that have created the strongest working class in history, and blame the working class for the poverty that is spreading.
"In a real free market economy, giant corporations wouldn't merge to become even bigger, shut down their competition, move jobs abroad, attack worker and employer paid (and time honored) programs that have created the strongest working class in history, and blame the working class for the poverty that is spreading."
Really? And what, precisely, would stop them?
Let's put it this way. Even big corporations only go so far and somewhere the government will step in and help. I know cassandra, JenniferB, and armybrat have discussed this before at different times that capitalism has its versions and the same can be said of free markets. You're used to the default bad meaning of "free markets" and so are most of us. But let's get to the raw definition. The big corporation goons are not telling the truth about who's really feeding who. If they're failing, they should be left free to fail with no assistance from the government. I know that Bliss Doubt agrees that we need good regulations but theoretically, even without them, if the government didn't have a double standard for bailing out the big goons while punishing the little guys for the same crimes, it wouldn't be as bad as what we now have. The little guy wouldn't be winning but the big guys wouldn't be unfairly winning with too many head starts.
By the way Bliss, that is sad to see military families and government contractors showing off like that with no awareness or acknowledgment as to whose blood is being sacrificed to get all those luxuries. Not all military families and government contractors show off like that. Many will in fact try to take that money and redirect it to worthwhile causes. I hope there can be some way to convince those people into sensible thinking but since it is TX, I can see the difficulties that lie ahead. The fight for getting more jobs away from Corporate America and the Military Industrial Complex is a serious goal worth pursuing. I know I'm on it and I hope millions of Americans will follow suit with us.
Hey Maxpayne,
I'm not blaming soldiers for anything at all. They believe they are serving their country, and I wish them no ill, though their philosophies are, no doubt, different than mine. Blaming soldiers for wars, bloodshed, civilian losses, and the kind of devastation we're lucky not to have seen here at home, would be to misplace the blame. I was just agreeing that ours is an economy that puts the emphasis on guns over butter.
I hope you're well. I saw a while back you wrote that you were laid off. Bastards. You were going to start your own company with some colleagues. I look forward to hearing more.
Bliss, I'm glad to hear from you and thanks for clarifying. Neither my wife nor I have any regrets about each of our layoffs. We're actually happier than we've been in all our married years to break away from corporate imprisonment as much as possible. I chose to allow my last contract to expire when my company not only refused to honor my request that project priorities be given to local businesses and not to the big banks, insurance companies, and the military but punished and humiliated me to insanity for it. Those three "customers" do not deserve to take the skills and hard work of us Americans and abuse it. My standing up got me punished and marginalized. Nonetheless, I used those remaining few months to plan a new life for myself and possibly for my wife. A few weeks after that, my wife wasn't faring much better and worse, she suffered twice as much misery when she tried to change her company's projects goals towards helping a few struggling local banks over enhancing technological management of a big bank that is a number one enemy of the credit union my wife and I are a member of. She let the company punish her by accepting their refusal to turn her 5 month contract into a full time position.
Ralph Nader once said it best when he said that software engineers in Carnegie Mellon University could be used for peaceful projects instead of building more software for the war machine back in 2000. Since the two of us are against allowing our skills and education to be used for abusive purposes, we refuse to stay like beaten children and chose to leave when trying to reform from within just wouldn't work. It is for this reason that I look at the layoff in my case and my wife's as a "red badge" of courage. We're still slow but steady on getting our new business started but it feels great to be emancipated from corporate slavery. I hope we two live long enough to succeed and encourage more to follow suit. As for the soldiers, I can understand why some would blame them and I have no qualms about that either although they too will have to get to the perpetrators at some point. I'll share our newfound experiences with our new careers in time. Stay tuned.
By the way, I was battling a few partisan party idiots on Alternet who tried to defend the politicians and play their "blame the individual game" when they took my past employment I had mentioned in the past and tried to use it against me to frame me and progressive independents as "Republicans" in their desperate attempts to defend the dying Democratic Party. I'll show those rascals who's really at fault and I'm glad others are getting the connections too. The latest budget numbers tick me off as well on all fronts. I enjoy gardening and biking in the sunlight as opposed to watching my dumb screen at work and people doing silly water cooler talk on media celebrities during lunch anyway.
Emancipation from corporate slavery. Amen. Good for you.
Max,
What are you doing for healthcare?
Good question. Yeah, it sucks to see the price tag right in front of me without an employer to cover for it. I can't afford to be sick. My wife and I will each try to make sure neither one of us get sick. I can't see what else I can do.
Banks were not allowed to merge before the era of deregulation. When monopolistic behavior was seen, antitrust laws allowed the breaking up of mega-corporations. All that I can tell you is that in the era of deregulation oil companies have merged to create a consolidated, collusive industry, and so have banking and investing institutions, the airlines and telecommunications. At the time deregulation began I had shit for brains, very little life experience, and so I was in favor of it. The selling points were that government's choke hold on industry would be broken, and companies would be free to compete more vigorously and serve consumers better. The opposite has happened, and it is getting worse. The only thing I hope for now is that industries will begin to eat each other, as is happening between BP, Transocean and Halliburton in the race to pin blame on someone, or escape blame, for the gulf oil disaster.
So, it seems to me that what you advocate is not a "free market" system, but a "regulated market" system, no?
Yes.
How about we give all the money that we the people have paid into the social security program back to us in one lump sum check. Something tells me that will save a few houses from foreclosure and spur the economy.
That may seem nice but that isn't how it is supposed to work. SS is an insurance program not a savings account. It is designed to spread the risk so that those most in need (those living the longest, the disabled, the widowed, the orphaned) can survive and hopefully live in safty and dignity.
If it is liquidated all of those people will need to be supported somehow, if not by taxes then by charity probably subsidizes by taxes. In that event we would be replacing a sane, solvent and self sustaining program with a mixed up hodge podge that would be a drain on the general fund and a political football.
"SS is an insurance program not a savings account. It is designed to spread the risk so that those most in need (those living the longest, the disabled, the widowed, the orphaned) can survive and hopefully live in safty and dignity"
Doesn't sound like Dean Baker agrees with that statement.
"It does exactly what it was supposed to do. It provides a modest income to the retired and disabled, and their families, to ensure that people who have spent their lives working will not fall into poverty. It is also extremely efficient, with administrative costs that are less than 1/20th as large as the costs of private insurers."
So are we arguing an insurance program or a retirement program?
It sounds like an annuity to me.
A retirement insurance program .....
Speaking of "spurring the economy", if any contingent of these oily politicians were brave enough to stand up for Social Security, that alone would spur the economy. Millions facing retirement in the next few years to a couple of decades are waiting to replace old cars, make home improvements or trade a smaller older home for a new larger one, and are afraid to spend on college for their children and grandchildren. Just knowing that their Social Security payments were sacrosanct would start the wheels of this economy turning again, but it seems to me that all of the politicians, so called left and so called right, work for the same multinational corporations that insist on making beggars of the world's working classes.
In spite of massive, visible public protests, France has made pension cuts. I read today that it passed the last hurdle. In our own country, where people sit on their hands and wait for the TV to tell them what the future will be, I'm quite sure we're on that conveyor belt, headed for the same butchery.
There's no money or other assets to "give back", only unsecured promises to pay. See (as I earlier mentioned): Wikipedia "Social Security Trust Fund", available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund:
"Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed 'by the full faith and credit of the government'. The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:
"'These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.' (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)"
"They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits."
Hmm, it sounds to me like the authorities to tax and print monies are pretty good "economic assets" ...
Horace: Some tricky hair-splitting you have going there. Since government bonds can be bought,sold, or redeemed, by definition they are real economic assets. You do nobody any useful service by repeating the propaganda that somehow this paper backed by the US Government is worthless. That is simply nonsense, no matter who said it.
Bear in mind that the law prohibits the trust fund to invest any money otherwise, to ensure that the fund is managed as safely as possible.
Also note the non sequitur in the quoted (and cleverly slanted) OMB piece "...impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits." It is not 'the Government' (whatever that might mean) that pays the benefits, it is the Trust Fund. The Social Security Administration is not responsible for solving whatever problems the Government may have as a result of borrowing money in the first place, no matter where that money came from. It is responsible only to pay the benefits specified in law or regulation.
The original law also specified that the Trust Fund is not part of the Federal budget. But politicians like to diddle with that, since said fund can make the big picture look healthier.
The "age of austerity" needs to be relabeled the "age of neofuedalism".
In 2008 the US Army assigned a battalion to Fort Drum New York that is dedicated to "domestic disturbances". When this group shows up at a rally or demonstration they will make the local SWAT teams look like girl scouts.
Recall as well when they first revealed that under Bush. I often think about it too. Isn't it illegal?
Yes. Posse Comitatus.
Raydelcamino. To the super wealthy and politically powerful elite anyone that is a threat to their wealth and power is expendable and it makes no difference if they are: Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani,Cuban or American. If millions of Americans became a viable threat to the elite they would have no compunction about turning America into the violence of another Iraq or Afghanistan. Hell, they murdered thousands of our fellow citizens in Vietnam,Iraq and Afghanistan; murdered college kids at Kent State; and did you ever hear an apology? They also assassinated many of our leaders that they perceived were a threat to their power and wealth and always lied and said it was some lone, nut case. The only difference between America's foreign policy and America's domestic policy is that Americans have not risen up yet and probably never will; especially once they eliminate the second amendment.
Jill
I can't tell you how much I admire your analysis and your recognition of the stupidity of refusing to work with anyone to accomplish your goals.
" No more hating tea party members as recommended by so many propagandists writing articles for CD. Work with anyone who knows what the govt. is doing is wrong and is willing to use peaceful resistance. The right wing interpretation of how it is wrong may be way off base, but that's what being able to articulate a progressive vision and accurate account of reality is for. We need to get cracking and fast."
I hope everyone here is taking note of this well stated truth.
I spend my entire working day around conservatives, plus all but one of my large family are profoundly conservative. I have yet to find any usable common ground with them. Remember that the "Tea Party" promoters overwhelmingly affluent. And the Tea Party is largely a media phenomenon - not an actual organization.
We don't need to engage conservatvies, we simply need to engage with our fellow citizens. If we do, we will find that few of them actually agree with the extremist so-called tea-party agenda
And who is this "govt." kemosabe? Is everything that "government" doing is wrong? Is the EPA wrong, How about OSHA or MSHA, - most of the Interior Department? The Agriculture Dept, including the US Forest Service? the HHS department, including Social Security and Medicare?
A good analysis can be found here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/tea-party-triumph-by-paul-street
Finally, someone who understands. The "government" of the tea party people does not exist. The government consists of people doing mostly clerical-type jobs that provide services to the rest of us. Some of them are our neighbors. Are they monsters conspiring to take away our freedom?
Politically ambitious people pander to those who are insecure enough to think that other middle-class people are out to get them. The whole thing would be laughable if it did not have serious consequences.
I believe people have been turned into these monsters through a lifetime of fear-inducing media. If there's a problem in the world, media and elites (a difference?) tap into innate racism and fear of the other to blame it on someone else (especially people of color). From there it's fairly easy to set the meme that poor people in general are trying to leech off of your hard work and that they are only poor because they are lazy and don't work as hard as you. So sharing becomes enabling of other lesser humans to rip you off of your hard-earned things. And now they are going further by altering Christianity and religion in general that to be be charitable is weak and not helping someone stand on their own and to become rich is a virtue that God wants you to be.
If we do not come together as a species soon and work for the continued well-being and health of the unit that is humans, we will die out. Generally, all biological life works in some way for the continuance of itself, from the lowly bacteria to the highest primates (excepting humans). We may be a disease on the planet but it's a disease that's actively trying to destroy itself. I also believe that the masses do not hold these fears to the point of denying others, but the masses have to somehow come together and purge these monsters (virii?) and those who hold the wealth and power, for the continued success of the human organism.
Beautifully said, Jill.
"Work with anyone who knows what the govt. is doing is wrong and is willing to use peaceful resistance. The right wing interpretation of how it is wrong may be way off base, but that's what being able to articulate a progressive vision and accurate account of reality is for. We need to get cracking and fast."
Agreed. The question is which peaceful means have the greatest potential for effecting what we need to effect. I have, and will continue to, argue(d) for using the ballot. It is an enormously powerful weapon when used in a judicious and disciplined manner. And i would suggest that the efforts of TPTB to obstruct, mangle, steal, limit access to for both candidate and citizen alike, and otherwise F the system up, are a powerful testimonial to the fact that this is so. Our problem, IMO, is that for too long we have cheapened, sabotaged and otherwise neutered the ballot by giving it to the duopoly, and there are still too many who insist on continuing that practice.
One can march 'til one's shoes wear out, phone 'til one's ear falls off, and write 'til one's fingers go numb, but if, at the end of the day one still pull these guys' levers one will be like the farmer who spends all day milking the cow and then gets up and kicks the bucket over.
I have specific criteria for those who want my vote, and they do want it, make no mistake, mine and everyone else's - why do you suppose they spend all this money on "campaigns"? For no other reason than to get our votes. If the candidate doesn't meet those criteria, he/she doesn't get my vote, period. The two parties have done all they can to numb and dumb down those criteria - which efforts are best exemplified by the "lesser evil" meme they inject in to our political bloodstream. And to back it up they attach "can't win" and "spoiler" to any who would challenge their "right" to your vote.
This piece that Baker does, (God bless you, Dean!) outlines how such dumbing and numbing down is done and by whom and to what end with regard to SS - "it is broke", "it won't be there for you", blah, blah, blah. Every time anyone hears this crap, understand who, by and large, is promoting it and why. The fact is it will be there for us and our kids and theirs IF AND ONLY IF we decide it will be. It was not "a gift from the gods", it was a decision made by we the people to take care of our own and it will be there as long as we continue to make that decision. And why do you suppose guys like Peterson spend all this time and money on injecting these memes into your consciousness? So that, WHEN YOU GO TO THE POLLS, you will pull the levers of the folks who chant these same memes and who represent the folks who would privatize these programs, for their gain and your loss.
Think about it ....
Of course Social Security is not like a funded pension. There is no "trust fund" other than U.S. Government IOU's. If you put your own IOU in your safety deposit box, does that increase your wealth or help to secure your retirement?
When FDR and the Congress put Social Security in in 1935, the life expectancy of the average worker was 65, which also (conveniently) was the retirement date on which payments would begin. In telling workers that Social Security was there to ensure they would have a secure retirement, FDR perhaps envisioned a secure retirement under ground.
There were 17 workers for every retired worker in 1935 -- largely as a result of people dying off. Now there are only 4 workers for every retired one and the huge population bulge represented by the Baby Boom is just starting to retire. And, happily or not (depending on your point of view perhaps), people are living longer, a lot longer. It is forecast that by 2050 the number of people over 90 and over 100 will be astoundingly higher than it ever has been. Thus, more mouths to feed and for longer.
Back to the finances. Today's Social Security contributions are paid out immediately to those receiving benefits. Sound familiar? Think Bernie Madoff.
The amount paid out is scaled back for higher wage earners, so that those at the bottom who retire at the official retirement age get about 70% in benefits of the wages on which they were paying Social Security taxes. Those at the top of the scale get only 30% of their wages on which Social Security taxes were paid. Does that sound like a pension, or is it more like a hybrid with significant welfare elements?