Faithful readers of Sound Politics know without fear of contradiction that Democrats have great trouble being serious about Social Security during the campaign season. Thus, it comes as no surprise that a new radio ad from Maria Cantwell exploits the same tired strategy.
As much as trying to demagogue seniors on this issue and Medicare is a staple of Democratic campaign strategy, that does not mean such loathsome tactics are intellectually honest.
Cantwell's ad is duplicitous on two key points, and missing in action on the real issues facing Social Security.
First Cantwell's ad attacks Mike McGavick for wanting to "privatize" Social Security, which the ad claims "will lead to a cut in Social Security benefits." Yet, a McGavick appearance on Robert Mak's "Up Front" specifically clarified McGavick opposes President Bush's reform plans, but wants "personal accounts" that are not an individually controlled asset, but an individual ledger that essentially remains under government management (see the 1:30 mark of the Mak video). That's not "privatization," to the chagrin of serious reform advocates. Cantwell's ad is dead wrong.
Second, Cantwell's ad claims McGavick favors "means testing," under which "seniors above a certain income level are no longer eligible for benefits." Except McGavick never said that. He does support a somewhat odd "voluntary" means testing program (see the start of the Mak video), and is open to a mandatory means test, but only if beneficiaries are not excluded. McGavick said he wants everyone to participate in Social Security, keeping it a social insurance program, not welfare (see 1:00 mark of the Mak video). Obviously, that's contrary to Cantwell's claim that McGavick's plan makes some seniors "no longer eligible for benefits." Again, Cantwell's ad is flat wrong.
Cantwell's ad closes explaining how her plans for Social Security involve spending even more money, without actually addressing the serious solvency issues that Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke raised just this week.
The ad is particularly odious because its clear goal is to scare seniors by talking about cuts in Social Security benefits and means testing without any context of time. Virtually every reform advocate has said those at-or-near retirement age should be held harmless, thus not being affected by any of the potential long-term changes discussed either by serious reform advocates like President Bush, or Mike McGavick (see 3:55 of the Mak video on this point). Yet, Cantwell's ad is clearly trying to alarm seniors that cuts and loss of eligibility - misnomers in and of themselves - are right around the corner if that nasty, mean Mike McGavick is elected. Closing the ad talking about promises made and promises kept tries to seal the deal, making the now scared senior feel warm and fuzzy in the cuddly embrace of Senator Cantwell's promises.
If one reads through the relevant Cantwell press release that includes citations for the ad's claims, one sees the sources are primarily press accounts of McGavick's position (an imprecise art on complex issues like Social Security) rather than any official source like his website. The release does, however, cite the above linked McGavick appearance on "Up Front," thus making the ad's false claims even more abhorrent since evidence to the contrary was right in front of the Cantwell team's noses.
It's no secret this author is a staunch supporter of Social Security reform, generally in support of the ideas advanced last year by President Bush. Reform advocates will likely dislike McGavick's position the more they hear about it. His "voluntary" means testing comes across as incredibly naive. He claims President Bush's plan favors private accounts that would be actively managed by "Wall Street" and where an individual would have "great freedom" in how to invest that money. That's simply not true (see this article noting how Bush supports personal accounts modeled on the TSP program for federal employees, which is nothing like what McGavick describes). He also states in the Mak interview that he wants to keep Social Security an insurance program, not an asset, a "retirement program, not an investing game." It would be easier to agree with him when FICA was a 1% or even 2% levy on American paychecks, but now that it is up to 6.2% with a corresponding employee match, that's much more than just an insurance program, especially since most Americans are not able to sock away 12.4% of their annual salary for retirement.
All that being said, reform advocates should like McGavick's position on Social Security reform, which is serious, infinitely better than Maria Cantwell's which is utterly unserious - just like her current radio ad.
UPDATE: David Postman digs further into McGavick's position on Social Security. Personally, I think Postman's frustration is simply a function of the challenge of covering an intensely intricate issue like Social Security where, in political terms, different sides and different people use various terms loosely without much precision. That's a problem in particular covering McGavick's position which is very precise, somewhere in between the Democratic position of "No!" and President Bush's more notable reform ideas.
UPDATE UPDATE: Respectfully Republican also has some toughts on Cantwell's ad.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 06, 2006 08:25 AM | Email ThisSee Postman's blog entry today on this. If Cantwell was relying on a prior Times piece for the ad, the fact that the Times piece went uncorrected until the contact Postman says he just received might explain it. Although I'm fine believing she's a Dem shill with no ideas of her own if it turns out that the Postman article had nothing to do with the basis of the radio ad. Onward.
Posted by: bob on October 6, 2006 08:24 AMShould we expect different now?
Posted by: swatter on October 6, 2006 09:04 AMhttp://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/A_Special_comment_about_lying_by_100 6.html
Posted by: danw on October 6, 2006 09:09 AMThe problem with Cantwell's position on Social Security (and many others' positions) is that it either ignores or denies the reality of Social Security and how demographics will affect it in the future. It's not a savings account, but a Ponzi scheme, where those who are young pay money which goes directly to those who are drawing benefits. We don't get back the money we paid/pay/will pay.
But in the future, due to demographic trends, the dollars that aging baby boomers will demand from the slush fund are more than the amount their far-fewer children and grandchildren are paying into the fund. What will happen then?
Cantwell and others seem to completely ignore this, and pretend that nothing is wrong. But then again, why should she worry about it, since she, as a multi-millionaire, probably has a pretty dang good retirement account built up and generating interest/wealth for her?
Oh, I know--she's for the WORKER, and the LITTLE PEOPLE, the POOR--and these are exactly the people who will find there is no money for them. Of course, they could maybe work for her as geriatric gardeners, or maids, or pool boys, or something...
Sorry, Cantwell (and the Washington State Teacher's Union that endorses her in spite of the bad math involving the future of Social Security)--you don't get my vote for that reason either.
With all the fighting she's claimed to have done and claims she will do she needs anger management training.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on October 6, 2006 09:37 AMBernanke just this week said that if something isn't done with Social Security now, we are in serious trouble. That seems to contradict both Burner and Cantwell's positions. But, so what?
Posted by: swatter on October 6, 2006 09:40 AMMike McGavick's ever evolving position on Iraq is
another one.This past sunday he tells robert mak
after being asked is america safer because of the
war in Iraq. :well the evidence would suggest that
the answer to that question is yes.Then a couple
days later he tells the Olympian editorial board
that the world is not necessarily safer though
were making progress.What a clever way of putting
it.Once again trying be all things to all voters.
nobody wants to address them. when ones addresses them, everybody scatters or says it's yucky, complicated & not worth discussion. the problem--although very real--grows slowly & does not go away by itself. no one wants to check on them periodically and adjust conditions or change habits. usually one has many chances & time to prevent future problems and make changes. and--when it's too late, there's a VERY nasty conclusion and lots of greiving & tears & everyone is "shocked."
let's bite the bullet and not fall into this cycle. reconsider automatic c.o.l.a.'s, retirement ages, limit or cut benefits that duplicate other benefits in other programs like education, etc, restrict program to retirement only, not the other host of benefits it grew into, privatize some parts to allow more investment choice like 401(k)'s.
Brazil or another S. Amer. country radically privatized their retirement system and have been doing well with a historical track record & no panic there. time to change or suffer the delayed cancer we allowed to grow.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 6, 2006 10:04 AMFrom:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/CDA98-01.cfm
For the low-income African-American male age 38 or younger, the news is particularly grim: He is likely to pay more into the Social Security system than he can ever expect to receive in benefits after inflation and taxes. Staying in the current system will likely cost him up to $160,000 in lifetime income in 1997 dollars.
If Americans were allowed to direct their payroll taxes into safe investment accounts similar to 401(k) plans, or even super-safe U.S. Treasury bills, they would accumulate far more money in savings for their retirement years than they are ever likely to receive from Social Security
Social Security's inflation-adjusted rate of return is only 1.23 percent for an average household of two 30-year-old earners with children in which each parent made just under $26,000 in 1996.1 Such couples will pay a total of about $320,000 in Social Security taxes over their lifetime (including employer payments) and can expect to receive benefits of about $450,000 (in 1997 dollars, before applicable taxes) after retiring at age 67, the retirement age when they are eligible for full Social Security Old-Age benefits.2 Had they placed that same amount of lifetime employee and employer tax contributions into conservative tax-deferred IRA-type investments-such as a mutual fund composed of 50 percent U.S. government Treasury bills and 50 percent equities-they could expect a real rate of return of over 5 percent per year prior to the payment of taxes after retirement. In this latter case, the total amount of income accumulated by retirement would equal approximately $975,000 (in 1997 dollars, before applicable taxes).
It is almost as if the Dems want to keep these people dependent on government.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 6, 2006 05:35 PMhttp://home.comcast.net/~wcormier78/smaller_5.jpg
Posted by: One Man's Opinion on October 7, 2006 04:09 AM-- The total Social Security shortfall (excess of scheduled benefits over program assets) is now $13.4 T. That's up from $10.5 T when the Trustees first started estimating it in 2003. Most of that increase is solely due to the loss of three years.
-- There's virtually no chance that the problem will diminish significantly, even if every demograhpic and economic variable breaks in the same direction. The annual stochastic analysis shows that costs will exceed revenues by 2017 in the median projection -- but the 90th percentile of the projections only delays them to 2020, and the 97.5th percentile to 2022. In other words, this problem isn't going away.
-- The currently projected 75-year shortfall is actually bigger (even relative to our larger economy) than the one that the Greenspan Commission confronted in a crisis atmosphere in 1981-83. Occasionally reform opponents will say there's no crisis now, but there was then -- but the shortfall is actually bigger now. In fact, it's almost twice as big, if you use the same method for estimating it that the Greenspan Commission used (the Trustees' methods changed in 1988 to make the shortfall appear smaller.)
-- It just so happens that the 1991 Trustees' report predicted we'd hit the permanent deficits in 2017 -- same as now predicted. Only then we had 26 years to deal with it -- now we have 11 years of lead time. Obstruction hasn't achieved anything other than to constrain our options and dig the hole deeper.
The bottom line is that there are tons of publicly available data to prove that the costs of obstruction are incredibly high. Those who have made it their mission to block changes to the program are ill serving our children and grandchildren.
Posted by: Feverishb on October 13, 2006 03:43 AM