House Speaker Pelosi holds the fate of Social Security in her hands

www.huffingtonpost.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holds the fate of Social Security in her hands.

The Speaker must use her power to make three appointments to President Obama's Deficit Commission to name lawmakers who will vote against raising the retirement age and re-computing the cost of living. If she doesn't, President Obama's Deficit Commission will recommend both of these things. The result will be reduced Social Security benefits for future retirees who will need every penny of retirement income they can get.

There's no question that the President's Commission has its sights aimed at Social Security. Alan Simpson, Obama's Republican co-chair, famously trashed AARP for its advocacy for seniors and supported Social Security privatization. He lays the blame for the deficit on seniors: "How did we get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you're 'entitled'?"

The answer, of course, is that Americans earn those benefits after a lifetime of contributions. Since most of us will eventually grow old (if we're not there already), this attempt to frame the issue in us-versus-them terms is puzzling. Simpson's prejudices aside, seniors have much lower average incomes than working-age Americans, leaving most dependent on Social Security benefits that are less than what minimum-wage workers earn. That's why polls show that most people -- Republicans and Democrats -- are happy to pay modestly higher payroll taxes to preserve Social Security benefits.

You would hardly think this was an option listening to Obama's appointees. Alice Rivlin, a Democratic appointee, has already announced that her answer to the deficit includes raising the Social Security retirement age. This is a benefit cut, plain and simple. The two-year increase we're going through right now reduces monthly benefits for a senior who retires at 65 by 13%, or $150. Raising the retirement age further, from 67 to 70, would reduce benefits by 30%, and the pain would be borne by younger workers, not today's seniors - so we wouldn't be doing our children or grandchildren any favors.

With fewer than half of workers on a path to a secure retirement, Social Security benefits are needed now more than ever. And despite alarmist attempts to portray Social Security as a system in crisis, there's no reason its benefits shouldn't be there for future generations. Social Security has a long-term shortfall equal to just 0.7% of GDP. To put this in perspective, this is only slightly more than the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of taxpayers. The system can be brought into long-term balance by modest revenue adjustments, without cutting critically-needed benefits.

The Deficit Commission was set up with rules requiring a vote by 14 of the 18 commissioners for any recommendation. Blocking cuts to Social Security thus requires five commissioners. It is fair to assume that every Republican will support such cuts, since opposition to "entitlements" is part of their party mantra (though it does not extend to entitlements that take the form of tax breaks like lower capital gains rates or mortgage interest deductions for second homes).

So where will five votes against Social Security cuts come from? One vote will be union leader Andy Stern's. He has announced that his special role on the Commission will be to defend Social Security. Sen. Dick Durbin should be a vote against such cuts, since he is among a handful of truly progressive senators who understand how hard it is to survive - as one-third of retired Americans do - with no income beyond Social Security.

Sen. Max Baucus is a wild card. He opposed the Conrad-Gregg deficit commission bill because, he said, it put a big target on the back of Social Security. But to say that Baucus is not reliably progressive is to state the obvious. He has made deals to help pass the Bush tax cuts for the rich, to kill the public option in the health care bill, and to enact a series of business tax cuts in the Bush and Obama stimulus bills that have left progressives groaning.

That leaves Speaker Pelosi's three appointments. If even one of her appointees is not unshakably opposed to Social Security benefit cuts, it could be disastrous. If two of Pelosi's appointees are not iron-clad opponents of raising the retirement age, the Commission will recommend it, Congress will take it up swiftly after the November election, and the right wing will have won another victory, cutting another big hole in the safety net.

Key House Democrats, including Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, are unreliable supporters of Social Security. He has been quoted as entertaining the notion of raising the retirement age again, and the entitlement-hating Blue Dogs can be expected to pressure Pelosi to appoint one of their members to the Commission. She must resist.

When President George W. Bush made a pass at privatizing Social Security, Nancy Pelosi proved herself to be one of its most ardent and capable defenders. Now hardworking Americans must count on her to show the same leadership.

For more information, please visit EPI.org.

Dreemz wrote:www.huffingtonpost.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holds the fate of Social Security in her hands.

The Speaker must use her power to make three appointments to President Obama's Deficit Commission to name lawmakers who will vote against raising the retirement age and re-computing the cost of living. If she doesn't, President Obama's Deficit Commission will recommend both of these things. The result will be reduced Social Security benefits for future retirees who will need every penny of retirement income they can get.

There's no question that the President's Commission has its sights aimed at Social Security. Alan Simpson, Obama's Republican co-chair, famously trashed AARP for its advocacy for seniors and supported Social Security privatization. He lays the blame for the deficit on seniors: "How did we get to a point in America where you get to a certain age in life, regardless of net worth or income, and you're 'entitled'?"

The answer, of course, is that Americans earn those benefits after a lifetime of contributions. Since most of us will eventually grow old (if we're not there already), this attempt to frame the issue in us-versus-them terms is puzzling. Simpson's prejudices aside, seniors have much lower average incomes than working-age Americans, leaving most dependent on Social Security benefits that are less than what minimum-wage workers earn. That's why polls show that most people -- Republicans and Democrats -- are happy to pay modestly higher payroll taxes to preserve Social Security benefits.

You would hardly think this was an option listening to Obama's appointees. Alice Rivlin, a Democratic appointee, has already announced that her answer to the deficit includes raising the Social Security retirement age. This is a benefit cut, plain and simple. The two-year increase we're going through right now reduces monthly benefits for a senior who retires at 65 by 13%, or $150. Raising the retirement age further, from 67 to 70, would reduce benefits by 30%, and the pain would be borne by younger workers, not today's seniors - so we wouldn't be doing our children or grandchildren any favors.

With fewer than half of workers on a path to a secure retirement, Social Security benefits are needed now more than ever. And despite alarmist attempts to portray Social Security as a system in crisis, there's no reason its benefits shouldn't be there for future generations. Social Security has a long-term shortfall equal to just 0.7% of GDP. To put this in perspective, this is only slightly more than the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of taxpayers. The system can be brought into long-term balance by modest revenue adjustments, without cutting critically-needed benefits.

The Deficit Commission was set up with rules requiring a vote by 14 of the 18 commissioners for any recommendation. Blocking cuts to Social Security thus requires five commissioners. It is fair to assume that every Republican will support such cuts, since opposition to "entitlements" is part of their party mantra (though it does not extend to entitlements that take the form of tax breaks like lower capital gains rates or mortgage interest deductions for second homes).

So where will five votes against Social Security cuts come from? One vote will be union leader Andy Stern's. He has announced that his special role on the Commission will be to defend Social Security. Sen. Dick Durbin should be a vote against such cuts, since he is among a handful of truly progressive senators who understand how hard it is to survive - as one-third of retired Americans do - with no income beyond Social Security.

Sen. Max Baucus is a wild card. He opposed the Conrad-Gregg deficit commission bill because, he said, it put a big target on the back of Social Security. But to say that Baucus is not reliably progressive is to state the obvious. He has made deals to help pass the Bush tax cuts for the rich, to kill the public option in the health care bill, and to enact a series of business tax cuts in the Bush and Obama stimulus bills that have left progressives groaning.

That leaves Speaker Pelosi's three appointments. If even one of her appointees is not unshakably opposed to Social Security benefit cuts, it could be disastrous. If two of Pelosi's appointees are not iron-clad opponents of raising the retirement age, the Commission will recommend it, Congress will take it up swiftly after the November election, and the right wing will have won another victory, cutting another big hole in the safety net.

Key House Democrats, including Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, are unreliable supporters of Social Security. He has been quoted as entertaining the notion of raising the retirement age again, and the entitlement-hating Blue Dogs can be expected to pressure Pelosi to appoint one of their members to the Commission. She must resist.

When President George W. Bush made a pass at privatizing Social Security, Nancy Pelosi proved herself to be one of its most ardent and capable defenders. Now hardworking Americans must count on her to show the same leadership.

For more information, please visit EPI.org.

Personally, I have never, ever counted on Social Security being there for me when I retire. It is a huge ponzi scheme. Take money from this person working to give to this person retired. Doesn't make much sense. It is kind of a legalize Madoff type program. Essentially Madoff took money from A, then had B join and then gave a portion of B's money to A and so on. That is what Social Security is doing.

I would have liked to seen 10% of a person's earnings privatized. Why can't I have some of the money that I put in, invested into something that I want? After all I am the one who busted my butt to make the money. You get zilch on the return of what you put in. If Social Security is such a good thing, why don't our lawmakers contribute to it? They are exempt, meaning that they have a choice of where their money goes. That doesn't seem fair to me. There is a town in Texas that was given the choice of participating in Social Security or doing something on their own. They decided they would do it themselves and each person that retired from that town wound up with almost a millon dollars to retire on. That sounds like a plan that I wouldn't mind looking at.

The government wants people to be dependent upon them. Thank you but no. I want to depend upon myself. At least if I foul up, I have no one else to blame. When the government fouls up, which they do on a regular basis, what choices are we left with? It isn't like you can turn around and sue them. I want to choke when the start talking about a "lock box" for Social Security. There never was a lock box, because there never was the money. See if you call Social Security and give them your SSN and ask them "how much money do I have in my account?", you are greated with silence. Then the operator will ask you "can you repeat your question?" to which you repeat what you just said, only to get "well, we can send you a statement". That doesn't answer the basic question of "how much is there?"

Like I said, I never had counted on Social Security and never will. If it is there fine. If not, it isn't something I will miss because I never had it.

Calibabe wrote: Personally, I have never, ever counted on Social Security being there for me when I retire. It is a huge ponzi scheme. Take money from this person working to give to this person retired. Doesn't make much sense. It is kind of a legalize Madoff type program. Essentially Madoff took money from A, then had B join and then gave a portion of B's money to A and so on. That is what Social Security is doing.

I would have liked to seen 10% of a person's earnings privatized. Why can't I have some of the money that I put in, invested into something that I want? After all I am the one who busted my butt to make the money. You get zilch on the return of what you put in. If Social Security is such a good thing, why don't our lawmakers contribute to it? They are exempt, meaning that they have a choice of where their money goes. That doesn't seem fair to me. There is a town in Texas that was given the choice of participating in Social Security or doing something on their own. They decided they would do it themselves and each person that retired from that town wound up with almost a millon dollars to retire on. That sounds like a plan that I wouldn't mind looking at.

The government wants people to be dependent upon them. Thank you but no. I want to depend upon myself. At least if I foul up, I have no one else to blame. When the government fouls up, which they do on a regular basis, what choices are we left with? It isn't like you can turn around and sue them. I want to choke when the start talking about a "lock box" for Social Security. There never was a lock box, because there never was the money. See if you call Social Security and give them your SSN and ask them "how much money do I have in my account?", you are greated with silence. Then the operator will ask you "can you repeat your question?" to which you repeat what you just said, only to get "well, we can send you a statement". That doesn't answer the basic question of "how much is there?"
Like I said, I never had counted on Social Security and never will. If it is there fine. If not, it isn't something I will miss because I never had it.[/color]

Social Security began long before the age of pensions and retirement programs. The problem is not the program itself, but the modifications made to allow new immigrants access to the system that never paid a dime into it in their life. As to Calibabe's comment about a statement, usually every year or couple years three months prior to your birthday you get a statement in the mail from Social Security, that tells you how many quarters you've worked, how much you've paid into the system, what your benefit will be if you continue to work at the present level of income, and what your benefit would be if you become disabled and unable to work.

I don't know how old you are, but I've paid into the system since 1975 when I first began to work. Even then unless you worked for a large corporation there was no such thing as a retirement fund or 401(k). Yes, I'm disabled and collect disability from Social Security and partial disability, pending evaluation from the Veterans Administration. There are many who are my age and older that never had the benefit of a 401k or other program.