It seems my previous post on Social Security caused some upset. As semi-interesting as that might be, the more notable fact is Goldy's response makes my point for me: most Democrats are "unserious" about Social Security reform. He trots out lots of issues unrelated to Social Security and then, like Cantwell, fails to actually present a plan to deal with Social Security itself. Thus, offering nothing to counter my argument that McGavick's position on Social Security, whether you agree with it or not, is infinitely more serious than Cantwell's.
UPDATE: David Postman has more on Cantwell's non-plan for Social Security here. Key points: she doesn't know how to pay for the increase in spending she wants, she'd like the government (not you) to invest the money, she implies people already have a Social Security account when they don't, and she thinks rich beneficiaries shouldn't face any reductions in benefits. No mention of how to deal with the actual solvency problems of Social Security that liberal and centrist pundits, noted in the extended post below, chide Democrats for not being serious about.
Specifically, Goldy seems to think problems with Social Security are related to the general federal budget. Incorrect. Social Security is separate. Moreover, Goldy seems to think that if Republicans weren't so evil that the federal budget would have been rosy the last several years (9/11, corporate accounting scandals, economic cycles, etc. not withstanding) and Social Security would be fine.
Well, let's see, this chart shows that federal budget deficits long pre-date Bush. But that's not even the issue since Social Security is a separate budget item, and general fund revenue has never been used to pay for Social Security. In addition, Goldy for some reason includes the trade deficit in his argument, which is a much more complex issue, influenced by much more than just government policy, and clearly has nothing to do with Social Security.
To humor the critics, let's rely strictly on Social Security's website to answer a few questions that might clear things up for Goldy. The Q&A at the site (see the section on "Social Security's Assets") notes that Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, where benefits for current retirees are paid for by payroll taxes from today's workers. Moreover, the declining number of workers per beneficiary (see the section on "Social Security's Future") means the heart of Social Security's long-term challenges are demographic in nature - again, not related to the general federal budget. Even the $1.9 trillion in special US Treasury Bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund are a "small percentage of benefit obligations."
Ok, so Goldy was wrong. It doesn't take a political genius to know even Republicans aren't exactly happy with the current Congress' spending habits. But again, Social Security has nothing to do with ongoing federal budget problems - regarding which I'm happy to put blame on Democrats and Republicans alike given that the issue goes back decades. Much like I'd also blame Democrats and Republicans for not doing something more constructive with the Social Security surplus that created the Trust Fund beginning in the early 1980's.
The crux of the problem remains that Social Security has long-term solvency problems. One can fine evidence for that even at liberal-leaning websites which validate that the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold traditional assets, only promises that the federal government is expected to honor (which it will) when the time comes. Specifically, this site notes Social Security "cannot redeem them for cash unless Congresses allocate money for this purpose." Take the $1.9 trillion in the Trust Fund plus the $4.6 trillion in unfunded obligations I noted in my original post and you have a sizable Social Security challenge that needs to be dealt with.
I personally believe Social Security has done some great things for this country, and is now a true American institution, but it's got serious long-term problems that need to be dealt with. To which the question remains, how would Democrats like to face these challenges? The collective answer from elected Democrats remains this: nothing.
But, don't take my word that this is a disingenuous move on their part, or even the word of conservatives and Republicans who have railed about this issue. Take the word of the Washington Post's editorial page, here and here. Or take that of liberal columnists E.J. Dionne and Sebastian Mallaby. Or even that of centrist pundits like David Broder and Mort Kondracke. Kondracke cites former President Clinton saying that the Democrats should have plan. But they, including Senator Cantwell, still don't.
Thus, my point of my original post remains: Cantwell's position on Social Security is unserious. Since the current debate of interest is about who would make the better Senator between Cantwell and McGavick, on this issue McGavick's seriousness gives him the nod hands down.
QUOTE
A group of 43 influential opinion leaders - including Alan Keyes, Phyllis Schlafly, David Horowitz and Swiftboat activist John O'Neill - have signed a declaration pledging to withhold support for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who votes for legislation providing "amnesty" or a guest-worker program for illegal aliens.
The members of a group called the Secure Borders Coalition say the immigration bill passed by the Senate and a plan proposed in the House by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., - which they call "amnesty lite" - are unacceptable.
They describe Pence's plan as providing for "the wholesale importation of aliens and a path to citizenship for them."
...
The cost of the Senate amnesty for illegal immigrants alone, according to the Heritage report, would be $50 billion a year for entitlements, including Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and federally funded legal representation.
...
The backers "call for enforcement now" and favor a "policy of attrition of the illegal population through strong enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, which includes, first and foremost, the securing of our borders."
END QUOTE
I don't even bother to read our friend Stefan Sound Politics much anymore
ROTFLMAO. Liar, liar, pants on fire. The folks on SP wouldn't care if those horse's assess would drop off the face of the Earth. Too bad the reverse isn't true...else their troll legion wouldn't post here.
Posted by: Steve_dog on July 7, 2006 08:41 AMIf I've been forced to pay into the corrupt program for decades, I want my cash back regardless of how well off I manage to be.
Not that I ever expect to collect a stinking dime - none of my retirement planning includes social security.
Posted by: H Moul on July 7, 2006 08:49 AMWithout changes, benefits will likely be frozen and means testing will be used to cut benefits to others.
One good start would be for the general fund to pay back all the money they have borrowed to go into Iraq.
Posted by: David T. on July 7, 2006 10:59 AMAnother point: When SS was created, the average age of death for an American was years before SS payouts began. FDR knew this and saw SS as a cool way to grab some for the general fund. Can't collect if you're not alive. The longevity of Americans screwed that all up though.
The Democrats are all over the park on this through the years. They have admitted that the program is in trouble (not since Bush was elected however) BUT resist any practical solution (only because it's GOP initiated I suspect) and only favor "solutions" that make it worse by leaps and bounds. Cantwell is in this league.
The best solution I have heard (Newt Gingrich's I believe) is running a two track (like it is now or privatized) and let the recipient make the choice. It may cost a little extra in the short run but nothing like the civilization destroyer it will be if SS keeps going the way it is. I believe that people, if offered the two-track, will vacate the old style SS in droves and it will die a natural death. Makes sense to me, I just wish I had the option when I was 35 years younger and tumbled to the fact that SS was a Ponzi scheme.
Here's what you are "entitled" to in life - a fair shot at doing the best you can. That's it, you aren't "owed" a damned thing by just being alive except life, liberty and a chance to pursue happiness. Get your damned fingers out of my pocketbook and get your life in order on your own dime.
Posted by: H Moul on July 7, 2006 11:51 AMWhen I'm talking about affluent beneficiaries, I'm talking about those in the future. Virtually every even semi-serious reform proposal includes protecting current and near retirees by holding harmless their promised benefits. I totally support that.
People on the liberal side of the spectrum talk about taxing the rich now and in the future more for Social Security, while conservatives tend to talk about reducing benefit growth for future affluent retirees (and some conservatives generally have been talking about means-testing Social Security and Medicare for quite some time).
Serious reform proposals cannot avoid the fact the system cannot pay out what is promised in the current structure without either fundamentally altering Social Security by infusing it with money from the general federal budget (with related painful impacts from tax hikes or cuts in other government programs), or changing the structure itself to alter both promised payments and how the system is funded.
Under reform proposals discussed last year, I as a younger worker would be accepting a lower guaranteed benefit in return for having some of my FICA taxes going into a personal account I control, as an inheritable asset. Based on my income, I would also be accepting slower growth in my guaranteed benefit than is currently promised. That's a bargain I'd gladly accept if it means I have a personal account as one part of Social Security, and the program becomes solvent without wrecking the regular federal budget.
The amazing thing here is that the left is always so myopic. They will always choose the short term gain over the long term winning strategy. And that's why the left is dying in this country. It cannot sustain itself or it's arguments. All of the failed utopian schemes come back to haunt. All of the unwillingness to defend our country from threats will come back to haunt. All of the coniving short sighted strategies have limited shelf life.
It's only a matter of time before their failures occur. What matters is the principals on which any idea is built. Building an argument on the continuation of Social Security will fail because of the facts of US demographics. Period.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 7, 2006 01:18 PMBRAVO! Nicely done.
Posted by: Libertarianobserver on July 7, 2006 01:33 PMThe second interpretation implies the belief that there is an account with one's tax money in it that the government is holding and will pay out over time once the person reaches a certain age.
I believe that the large majority of people think that the second interpretation is correct. This is one reason that any SS reform is difficult, if not impossible. The average person believes that it is "their" money. Nothing is further from the truth. As has been pointed out here, today's worker's taxes are paying for today's retirees.
When the libs scream that the mean and evil Republicans want to take your SS money, they are preying on the fear that one's personal SS account will be raided. Nothing is further from the truth.
People don't see that ~6% taken out of their paychecks (plus an equivalent tax on the employer) but they sure do see that SS check in the mail. If people had to write a check to the government every two weeks there would be more of a demand from the public for personal retirement accounts.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 7, 2006 02:05 PMWhat I would like to see from the "rich" is that payroll withholding not be capped at a certain income level - currently around $90K/yr. (those who love the research can get the exact income level at which payroll deductions are stopped each year). Having the "rich" not pay into the system after they reach a certain income level makes Social (in)Security another tax on the "poor" and middle-class.
One thing people usually misunderstand about the SS system is that benefits are tied to income, but only loosely. For the most part your benefit is tied to and average of your peak earning years; however, it is tied not to your ACTUAL income but on your SS income. If you look closely at your W-2s each year, you have multiple fields for income. Gross, Taxible, SS, and Medical (or some such.) For many of us there is little difference between these fields. However, if you make over 90k (or whatever the cut-off is at the time), the difference is more pronounced. Your SS income is capped, but then SO IS YOU maximum benefit, which is tied to that CAPPED amount.
So, when some rich person stops being taxed on the money above the cut-off, they aslo are are not CREDITED for that additional income when their benefits are calculated. If you choose to take the lid off the taxible amount, you also take the lid off the benefit amount. You will have acheved nothing under the current program. Now you COULD take the lid off the taxible limit while keeping the lid on the benefit limit, but then you are doing exactly what conservatives loathe: wealth transfer.
As it is, the SS system is a regressive BENEFIT system. The amount of benefit that is tied to income decreases with your income. So, low earners have a higher benefit to income rate than high income earners do because for each additional $100 you make per month, you get less benefit in retirement for that $100. But apparently these things aren't sufficient for the income distribution proponents who want you to think the SS tax is a tax on the poor and middle class.
Just thought you might like to know.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on July 7, 2006 03:02 PMAlso, please remember that when a President is sworn into office, you swear to uphold the laws of the United States and that makes you the "top cop". That also means you can't lie under oath. It may not be serious to you BUT telling the truth is the backbone of our legal system and for a Prez that is (well, 'was' now I guess) also a member of a bar, lying is pretty serious stuff. That's why he was disbarred too. But you can spin that any way you like to make yourself feel better.