Camels putting their noses under the Tent.
Look! It's media's time to bring up all its pet projects and try to impress the incoming Democratically run Congress with their promise. So this a.m. I am looking at the Social Security smiley face campaign. That's a smiley face on a pig, as the Cretin in Chief so thoroughly learned in his determination to overturn the system that has offered security to this country's seniors since FDR's administration.
Fun facts that its opponents like to point out about Social Security include the beginnings as a program for those whose life expectancy was lower than the proposed retirement age. Most seniors in the U.S. in the 30's did not live to be 60, so little use was envisioned for the retirement funds, and those funds were measured in pennies actually deducated from income. The initial tax rate was 2.0% of the first $3,000 of the employee's earnings, shared equally between the employee and the employer. The tax rate has been raised several times over the years, beginning in 1950, when it was raised to 3.0%.
Of course, as recently as when I started to work in 1966, those incomes were miniscule, too. I started on Capitol Hill at less than $5,000 per annum. I could live on that easily. Senators made about $30,000 per annum.
The C-I-C was proposing, after his self-styled mandate, to replace seniors' income with 'private savings accounts', which of course, he didn't want referred to as 'privatization'. If that had actually been in effect during the past two years, during which time interest rates were quite low, savings would have stagnated. Only in the past few months have interest rates,the C-I-C's idea of just returns on seniors' money, shown any increase, and at today's rates are lower than 6%. The rate of living increase was higher, especially for energy and gasoline.
So shiver their timbers, obviously the C-I-C was misquoted, he said 'piratization' not 'privatization'.
Today the WaPo editorial board is enjoining the incoming Democratic majority 'can we just talk' about this?
Some Democrats dispute the urgency of the problem, arguing that the notional assets in the Social Security trust fund are sufficient to pay all the benefits promised to retirees for the next 40 years. But a retirement system needs to make credible promises that last longer than that ******************************** Another argument against addressing Social Security is that health care is more pressing. It's true that the budget challenge Social Security presents, which is the result of the retirement of the baby boomers plus rising life expectancy, pales next to the budget challenge Medicare presents, which is the result of those two factors multiplied by galloping inflation in health-care costs.
Firstly, of course, can anyone give me a direct quote from anyone of any party who disputes the urgency of the problem, or says we shouldn't address Social Security because health care is more pressing? I would be surprised if anyone outside the sequestration of the editorial closet at WaPo would beg to be this obviously specious. Additionally, the 'challenge' Social Security presents has something to do with the fund's having been requisitioned to fight its wars by this administration. Borrowing from the fund has been used before, but this administration adds to that method the accumulating debt for us seniors' grandchildren to pay.
We might say that arguing about funding the war by emergency measures outside of the budget was not so urgent as waging the war, or that we shouldn't spend days on the floor of Congress debating gay marriage since the deficit which is actually an emergency in a sane world would take precedence. But I didn't hear this discussed in the recent blessedly past Congress nor did I hear the urgency of health care raised.
With a little more of a bow to actual benefits as the alternative to taking away Social Security, Sebastian Mallaby suggests the Democrats be reasonable and consider private accounts as an addition to, not a subtraction from, that system. Noting that the party of the very wealthy is going to concentrate on saving the system they have endangered, he argues for a proposal put forward by some one with the interests of the endangered working class at heart.
Judging from the hints flying around Washington , the administration sees how to bridge this divide. Democrats may be allergic to personal Social Security accounts, but they are enthusiastic about other ideas for personal retirement accounts that just don't have "Social Security" in the title. For example, Gene Sperling, a former Clinton adviser, has called for a "Universal 401(k)" that would extend the benefits of 401(k) saving to workers whose companies don't offer such accounts. In Sperling's vision, everyone would get the chance to contribute to an account and receive a government contribution as a match, with the most generous match going to low-income workers. To pay for this program, the government could prune the existing $150 billion patchwork of tax breaks for saving. This patchwork is extraordinarily, scandalously regressive: 90 percent of the tax breaks go to the richest 40 percent of taxpayers.
Sperling is motivated by a desire to help low-income people. As he writes in his book, "The Pro-Growth Progressive," 85 percent of workers in the bottom fifth of the labor force have no access to a company 401(k), nor do 75 percent of Hispanic workers or 60 percent of black workers. Globalization, which has boosted the volatility of family incomes, makes it especially important to help workers build assets that can cushion them against job loss, illness or the financial fallout from divorce. Although the Universal 401(k) would be primarily aimed at retirement security, there could be limited earlier withdrawals at times of misfortune.
Nice, while the free trade policies which encourage our businesses to send your jobs abroad are eliminating job security altogether, your new socially responsible Congress would give you some deductions for trying to protect yourself from its depradations. Wouldn't a sound economy with business encouraged to support the working people it expects to buy their products be far preferable? Even businesses have to notice eventually that not providing our workers the financial resources to 'buy American' is economic policy that doesn't benefit them or the country.
From all of the above, I would say to those of my generation, be warned. The last Congress 'borrowed' from Social Security to pay for the extravagance of its spending. This Congress is going to be pressured to substitute another savings method for the one that has worked so well that our seniors live in comfort. Before letting the camel put its nose under the tent, I want our Congress to decide whether letting the camel into the tent is in the interest of the voters that put them in that tent in the first place.
Does anyone want to look at the workings of Congress toward making our economy a safe one for workers, for consumers, and for seniors' retirement from it? That's the Congress voters chose when they cast their votes in election year 2006. All the advice in the world shouldn't deter this Congress from the task of pulling the country back from disaster, toward a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Fun facts that its opponents like to point out about Social Security include the beginnings as a program for those whose life expectancy was lower than the proposed retirement age. Most seniors in the U.S. in the 30's did not live to be 60, so little use was envisioned for the retirement funds, and those funds were measured in pennies actually deducated from income. The initial tax rate was 2.0% of the first $3,000 of the employee's earnings, shared equally between the employee and the employer. The tax rate has been raised several times over the years, beginning in 1950, when it was raised to 3.0%.
Of course, as recently as when I started to work in 1966, those incomes were miniscule, too. I started on Capitol Hill at less than $5,000 per annum. I could live on that easily. Senators made about $30,000 per annum.
The C-I-C was proposing, after his self-styled mandate, to replace seniors' income with 'private savings accounts', which of course, he didn't want referred to as 'privatization'. If that had actually been in effect during the past two years, during which time interest rates were quite low, savings would have stagnated. Only in the past few months have interest rates,the C-I-C's idea of just returns on seniors' money, shown any increase, and at today's rates are lower than 6%. The rate of living increase was higher, especially for energy and gasoline.
So shiver their timbers, obviously the C-I-C was misquoted, he said 'piratization' not 'privatization'.
Today the WaPo editorial board is enjoining the incoming Democratic majority 'can we just talk' about this?
Some Democrats dispute the urgency of the problem, arguing that the notional assets in the Social Security trust fund are sufficient to pay all the benefits promised to retirees for the next 40 years. But a retirement system needs to make credible promises that last longer than that ******************************** Another argument against addressing Social Security is that health care is more pressing. It's true that the budget challenge Social Security presents, which is the result of the retirement of the baby boomers plus rising life expectancy, pales next to the budget challenge Medicare presents, which is the result of those two factors multiplied by galloping inflation in health-care costs.
Firstly, of course, can anyone give me a direct quote from anyone of any party who disputes the urgency of the problem, or says we shouldn't address Social Security because health care is more pressing? I would be surprised if anyone outside the sequestration of the editorial closet at WaPo would beg to be this obviously specious. Additionally, the 'challenge' Social Security presents has something to do with the fund's having been requisitioned to fight its wars by this administration. Borrowing from the fund has been used before, but this administration adds to that method the accumulating debt for us seniors' grandchildren to pay.
We might say that arguing about funding the war by emergency measures outside of the budget was not so urgent as waging the war, or that we shouldn't spend days on the floor of Congress debating gay marriage since the deficit which is actually an emergency in a sane world would take precedence. But I didn't hear this discussed in the recent blessedly past Congress nor did I hear the urgency of health care raised.
With a little more of a bow to actual benefits as the alternative to taking away Social Security, Sebastian Mallaby suggests the Democrats be reasonable and consider private accounts as an addition to, not a subtraction from, that system. Noting that the party of the very wealthy is going to concentrate on saving the system they have endangered, he argues for a proposal put forward by some one with the interests of the endangered working class at heart.
Judging from the hints flying around Washington , the administration sees how to bridge this divide. Democrats may be allergic to personal Social Security accounts, but they are enthusiastic about other ideas for personal retirement accounts that just don't have "Social Security" in the title. For example, Gene Sperling, a former Clinton adviser, has called for a "Universal 401(k)" that would extend the benefits of 401(k) saving to workers whose companies don't offer such accounts. In Sperling's vision, everyone would get the chance to contribute to an account and receive a government contribution as a match, with the most generous match going to low-income workers. To pay for this program, the government could prune the existing $150 billion patchwork of tax breaks for saving. This patchwork is extraordinarily, scandalously regressive: 90 percent of the tax breaks go to the richest 40 percent of taxpayers.
Sperling is motivated by a desire to help low-income people. As he writes in his book, "The Pro-Growth Progressive," 85 percent of workers in the bottom fifth of the labor force have no access to a company 401(k), nor do 75 percent of Hispanic workers or 60 percent of black workers. Globalization, which has boosted the volatility of family incomes, makes it especially important to help workers build assets that can cushion them against job loss, illness or the financial fallout from divorce. Although the Universal 401(k) would be primarily aimed at retirement security, there could be limited earlier withdrawals at times of misfortune.
Nice, while the free trade policies which encourage our businesses to send your jobs abroad are eliminating job security altogether, your new socially responsible Congress would give you some deductions for trying to protect yourself from its depradations. Wouldn't a sound economy with business encouraged to support the working people it expects to buy their products be far preferable? Even businesses have to notice eventually that not providing our workers the financial resources to 'buy American' is economic policy that doesn't benefit them or the country.
From all of the above, I would say to those of my generation, be warned. The last Congress 'borrowed' from Social Security to pay for the extravagance of its spending. This Congress is going to be pressured to substitute another savings method for the one that has worked so well that our seniors live in comfort. Before letting the camel put its nose under the tent, I want our Congress to decide whether letting the camel into the tent is in the interest of the voters that put them in that tent in the first place.
Does anyone want to look at the workings of Congress toward making our economy a safe one for workers, for consumers, and for seniors' retirement from it? That's the Congress voters chose when they cast their votes in election year 2006. All the advice in the world shouldn't deter this Congress from the task of pulling the country back from disaster, toward a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
posted by Ruth at 2:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home