Over the course of the past couple of weeks we've been talking about how the War On Social Security was about to get under way and what happens when countries choose to privatize their systems.
Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?
We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.
"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"
That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.
So if you've been following my work lately, you know that there is a renewed effort underway to change Social Security, and that the fight officially began just this very morning.
Now what's supposed to happen is that a television ad buy sponsored by a Wall Street billionaire is supposed to get you enthused about cutting your own Social Security benefits in the future; this is the tip of a "disinformation iceberg" that is trying to get you to act, right now, because if you don't you will never, ever, ever, ever, see a single dime of Social Security when you get older.
I was on a "let's talk strategy" conference call today that laid out some ideas for the "next steps"; we'll be talking about that call over the next couple of stories...but for today, we're going to talk about something you can do that will bring the message right to your favorite Member of Congress.
It is my job to bring to you not just the news that took place, but the news that has yet to happen.
Today, that's exactly what we have.
There is a war coming to try to change Social Security from a social safety net to a "revenue stream" for certain corporate interests, and that war is set to begin Tuesday morning, according to information that was provided to me yesterday afternoon.
Follow along, and you'll be both forewarned and forearmed.
With the election over, it's time to move on to new things, and the folks at the Campaign for America's Future have asked me to do some writing about Social Security, which sounds like some big fun, so here we are.
We're going to start with some reasonably simple stuff today, just to get your feet wet; by the time we get a few stories down the road there will be some complicated economic analysis to work through-but let's begin today by looking a bit south.
Those who support privatizing Social Security in this country often point to Chile as an example we could follow, and that seems like a good place to get the conversation going...so set your personal WayBack Machine to Santiago, May, 1981, and let's see what we can learn.
Miami, Florida, September 13, 2018 (FNS)-Facing pressure from voters to "do something" following the disaster caused by the privatization of Social Security, the White House today announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is awarding a $2 billion contract to the Halliburton Company for the purchase of 22,000 "cardboard condos" that will be installed in public parks around the Miami area in an effort to alleviate the problem of homelessness among the impoverished elderly.
"Having homeless senior citizens drag their appliance boxes all over the city reduces the community's aesthetic appeal and leads to complaints", said Halliburton spokesman Tendei Furlough. "The new modular design, combined with our ability to print attractive images on the outside of the boxes, guarantees both increased protection from winter weather and fewer complaints from affected neighborhoods."
FEMA's Director of Emergency Housing Resources Spike Fromula agreed: "We thought we had a real problem with homelessness in a number of our major cities after the Social Security safety net collapsed...but now, we think...well, we think we have a way to wrap the problem up in a neat little package."
(Riverside) - Corona-Norco School Board member and Democratic congressional candidate Bill Hedrick called on his Republican opponent to withdraw his past support for plans to privatize Social Security.
Hedrick addressed seniors Thursday afternoon at two senior living centers in Riverside to hear their concerns and state his "hands off" policy to Social Security: No to raising the retirement age, No to raiding the Social Security trust fund, No to Social Security privatization and No to cuts in benefits for American retirees. He also called on Congressman Calvert (R-Corona) to admit he was wrong when he voted to privatize Social Security.
"The American people better watch out with Ken Calvert in Congress," Hedrick said. "If it were up to him, American retirees would be left to fend for themselves during this recession while golden parachutes for CEOs would be a-okay. He needs to talk to his constituents and admit he was wrong, plain and simple."
California Senator Dianne Feinstein has joined a group of Senators threatening to allow the nation to default on its debt unless a commission to "fast track" cuts to Social Security is created.
This is a more thorough examination of the job insurance concept, done on a national level, but you can easily scale it to California or any other state.
Introduction:
In my previous posts about unemployment insurance reform and 50-state Keynesianism, I made brief reference to something called “job insurance.” Several people requested a fuller explanation, which is only fair considering that I had rather tacked on the idea without fully developing what I meant.
So here is a blueprint for how job insurance is supposed to work, as a major solution to the problem of declining job growth and increasing economic insecurity. To start with, let me explain what job insurance is not – it is not the temporary “transition trade assistance” (inadequate and ill-conceived at the best of times) referred to by most workers as “burial insurance.” It’s not the “wage insurance” that semi-penitent neoliberals have dreamed up to compensate for the fact that the new jobs being created by their post-industrial economic order pay less than the blue collar factory jobs of the past.
What job insurance is, in reality, is the missing link in our Social Security system.
"Unemployment compensation, as we conceive it, is a front line of defense, especially valuable for those who are ordinarily steadily employed, but very beneficial also in maintaining purchasing power. While it will not directly benefit those now unemployed until they are reabsorbed in industry, it should be instituted at the earliest possible date to increase the security of all who are employed..." - Report to the President, Committee on Economic Security (1935)
In a previous post, I discussed the need to improve the payroll tax, and noted that one of the reasons we need to do this is to fix the unemployment insurance (UI). Our current UI system is fundamentally broken. As I wrote on the 12th, "at a time when nearly one in ten American workers are unemployed, only half of them qualify for Unemployment Insurance, to the extent that the program no longer adequately functions either as a safety net or an “automatic stabilizer.”"
If I didn't have the time and the space to say it at the time, let me say it now. The fact that a majority of workers are no longer protected, nearly seventy-five years after the passage of an act that was meant to protect every worker from" one of many misfortunes" of economic life, is a moral failure of the highest order. The idea that governors in America would reject stimulus funds in the middle of a recession because those funds would make it easier for temporary or part time workers to gain access to UI suggests the total moral bankruptcy of the American conservative movement. Not for nothing did FDR say:
"Governments can err, presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
California food stamp recipients will receive 13.6% more benefits thanks to the federal economic stimulus package, the state Department of Social Services announced Wednesday.
The increase, effective immediately, was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, approved by Congress and signed by President Obama in February.
John Wagner, the state social services director, said in a statement that the increase "will dramatically help families, while also boosting California's economy in ways that benefit grocers, food manufacturers and growers."
The average monthly food stamp benefit received by about 2.5 million Californians will increase from $300 to $341 per household. State food stamp rolls are expected to increase by 300,000 this year, officials said.
The federal stimulus package also provided $22 million in administrative funding for the state food stamp program, and 10 million pounds of food for food banks and pantries that serve low-income Californians through the federal Emergency Food Assistance Program.
Food stamp money is almost immediately spent. It's among the most effective forms of stimulus there is, with each dollar generating $1.73 in economic activity. Combined with the one-time $250 payment to anyone in the Social Security system, which is also very likely to get spent, these actions will provide a short-term boost to the economy, especially in California, which has an older population than other states.
Gloria Molina is trying to extend the benefit to those who have lost their jobs:
Earlier this week, in an effort to help unemployed middle-class workers who do not qualify for government aid, L.A. County Supervisor Gloria Molina proposed that the county pursue temporary state and federal waivers of eligibility requirements for cash aid, food stamps and housing benefits.
"As more and more people lose their jobs and search in vain for new ones in a shrinking job market, many families are finding themselves, often for the first time, with inadequate funds to pay their rent or mortgage, keep their utilities and provide food for their children," Molina said Tuesday, citing an article in The Times last week.
Molina noted that each month, food stamp applications are denied for more than 19,000 county residents, and 7,000 applicants are denied benefits under CalWorks, a welfare program for families.
The middle-class needs for aid have gone up dramatically in the state over the past six months. Particularly in our areas in Depression, the crisis is very wide and broad. Until the economy recovers, and as a means for it to recover, these actions at the federal level can at least cushion the blow.
Democratic MEMBERS Meeting on Bailout Plan, TODAY, Room 2220, 2:30-3:30pm
From: The Honorable Brad Sherman
Date: 9/22/2008
Skeptical About the
Administration's $700 Billion Bailout Plan?
Democratic Members Meeting
Room 2220
2:30-3:30 P.M.
Dear Democratic Colleague:
Are you skeptical about the $700 billion bailout bill? Let's meet in Room 2220 on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 2:30 PM. Come to the first and perhaps only meeting of the Skeptics Caucus to discuss President Bush's $700 billion bailout bill. Democratic Members and Senior Staff only.
Bring specific legislative proposals. I will be bringing legislative proposals to carry out the principles set forth in the letter below. If you have questions about this meeting, please contact me or my Legislative Director and Counsel, Gary Goldberg, at xyz.
Sincerely,
Brad Sherman
Member of Congress
I would expect this out of a Barbara Lee or Maxine Waters, but coming from Sherman, this means that rank and file Democrats are very wary of getting steamrolled by the Bush Administration and let a major chunk of the Federal treasury flow out of their control. Sherman is pretty middle-of-the-road as Democrats go, squarely in the mainstream of the party if not to the right of the mainstream, not a guy who's out in front a lot and not (to my knowledge) a member of the Progressive Caucus. I've met him a couple times out here in California and he seemed OK, but not exactly the guy I'd expect to go to war with. If Sherman is marching (pardon the pun), there's a very large skeptic's caucus, I'd gather. And Sherman's prescriptions for a better bill (available at the link) are really good.
"We must take action to keep our whole economy from collapsing. But if the plan by the Treasury which has leaked out today is genuine, then it's unclear if the plan will work at all.
"Add in a massive transfer of authority to the executive branch, with no congressional oversight or judicial review, and this plan should be dead on arrival.
"Handing over taxpayer money to the government with no oversight is always a bad idea and it's especially rotten given the current administration's track record."
And Rep. Hilda Solis, traveling with netroots favorite Annette Taddeo in South Florida, released a great statement as well, connecting this fiscal crisis to the effort to privatize Social Security:
"Three years ago, President Bush and rubberstamps in Congress like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen fought hard to privatize Social Security. From the floor of Congress, Ros-Lehtinen said that she "applauded the President for his strong leadership and vision" and that she wanted to "reform Social Security to include private accounts. Had George W. Bush and rubberstamps in Congress had their way, today's financial crisis would be a full-blown emergency. Tens of millions of seniors around the country, including hundreds of thousands here in South Florida, would have lost their pensions overnight."
It's time for an "all-hands-on-deck" approach. Call your Representatives and tell them you don't want to give a blank check for $700 billion dollars to the guys who messed up Iraq and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
(Moved video up top as it is pretty gosh darn funny. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Yesterday, we told you about California Democrats who were holding events to celebrate the 73rd birthday of Social Security. Their intent was to both pay tribute to the program that has been a lifeline to millions of seniors for over seven decades AND to condemn John McCain and Republican members of Congress who are eager to privatize the system and let the corporate greed-mongers of Wall Street make a bundle.
For instance, Jeff Morris, the Congressional Democratic candidate who is going head-to-head with Wally Herger in CA-02, held his campaign kickoff at the Social Security office in Redding.
Julie Bornstein, the Democrat running to unseat Mary Bono Mack in CA-45 also held an event, to open her new campaign office in Palm Springs, with a special emphasis on celebrating 73 years of Social Security.
But Beverly and Leonard's celebration in CA-03 took the cake, so to speak...
Today is the birthday of Social Security, and Democrats around the country will be celebrating the program that has provided stability and dignity to seniors for the last 73 years. During the last few years, George W. Bush, John McCain and the Republicans in Congress have done their best to try to dismantle the protections that Social Security has built over the years.
"The American people said 'no' to George W. Bush and John McCain when they tried to privatize Social Security, and they'll say the same loud and clear to John McCain this November for promising more of the same," said DNC Chairman Howard Dean. "The same people who brought you Enron can't be trusted to gamble away the Social Security trust fund on the ups and downs of the stock market. John McCain is wrong on the privatization of Social Security, and he's the wrong choice for America's future."
Throughout the US, Democrats will be visiting Republican legislators and taking them copies of this birthday card. Here in California we have several special events taking place.
Up in CA-02, Democratic Candidate Jeff Morris, who is challenging the do-nothing Republican incumbent, Wally Herger, will be holding his Campaign Kick-Off at the Social Security Office in Redding. If you're in the area, stop by and meet him and his wife, Judy, and their many dedicated supporters.
Where: Social Security Office, 2195 Larkspur Office, Redding, CA 96002
When: Thursday August 14th at 9:45 am
Down in CA-45, Julie Bornstein, the Democratic candidate who is challenging Republican Mary Bono Mack, will be celebrating both the Social Security Birthday and the opening of her campaign office in Palm Springs. There's a rumor that cake may be involved...
Where: 1027 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA
When: Thursday August 14th from 4:30 to 6:30 pm
"The president insists on defining amnesty in a way that is contrary to the way everybody else defines that word," he said. "Every time he does, he loses credibility."
Calling himself a strong supporter of Bush throughout his administration, Rohrabacher said that this time he was personally offended by Bush's suggestions that the bill was good for America. He repeatedly referred to it as the "Bush-Kennedy" bill, linking Bush to Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, and he blamed the bill on an "unholy coalition between the big-business element of the Republican Party and the liberal left."
Amnesty? "Bush-Kennedy"? Huh? Maybe Dana Rohrabacher is taking the right position on this bill, but he's doing it for the completely wrong reason. So why is Dana wrong, even when he's right? Follow me after the flip for more...
With Democrats only enjoying a one seat majority in the U.S. senate, a single Democratic defection would allow Vice President Dick Cheney to cast a tie-breaking vote. For Republicans, the number one target to undermine Harry Reid's leadership is Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). Even the conservative New Republic wrote, "What Baucus does is use his influence as the top Democrat on the Finance Committee to systematically undercut his party and enable George W. Bush's most egregious domestic legislation."
Yesterday's Washington Post has a story, Democrats to Push Pocketbook Issues where Sen. Baucus hinted at siding with big corporations to undermine incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Many in the party want to change Medicare's new drug benefit so the government can negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. Incoming Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) remains unsure. "We need to be very honest in getting the facts" about whether such a switch would be helpful, he said.
Would lowering prescription drug prices be helpful? For you and I, yes. But Max Baucus is wondering whether triangulating against Democrats will help his re-election campaign.
This past week, much to everyone’s surprise, Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to slip a proposal to increase the minimum wage into a bill funding the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.
Faced with the specter of having to vote against increasing the wage floor from its current embarrassing level of $5.15 to $7.25 by Jan. 1, 2009, Congressional Republicans snapped into action and pulled the bill.
This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don’t want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it’s ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people’s taxes but deny the working poor a boost.
Well, I say: “Not so fast, guys. Let’s chat about this for a few minutes.”
Not let me get this straight. Last month, you passed $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains. When tax cuts target investment income, the benefits flow to the wealthy, and these cuts are exhibit A: they reduce millionaire’s tax payments by $43,000, and those of middle-income families by $20. Sorry, that’s not a typo. It’s what you get when you put the YOYOs in charge of fiscal policy.
Wait a second, where you going? I’m not done. Set a spell…
Throughout the US, Democrats will be visiting Republican legislators and taking them copies of this birthday card. Here in California we have several special events taking place.
