Dirty Hippies » Social Security

A Radical Idea for Radical Times

Tom Sullivan — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 02:18:15 +0000

“Mail is like oxygen. It’s there and you count on it, and you don’t get worried about it until it disappears. There is going to be concern by a lot of people if this goes away. The national concern is going to be enormous.” — Tonda Rush, president of the National Newspaper Association, commenting on the unraveling of the United States Postal Service

So here’s a radical idea for radical times: Nationalize the United States Post Office.

Just writing the words makes my eyes spin around in my head. The Ryan-esque view that it would un-American to un-privatize an operation like the United States Post Office is such a retromingent exercise in inverse reasoning that I regret not being clever enough to come up with a corporate flak-friendly name for it. Like right-sizing or blamestorming or activating synergies of scale.

Yet in the up-is-down, Bizarro World that is Washington, D.C., privatizing the United States Postal Service — Benjamin Franklin’s United States Post Office — makes Bizarro sense. Drape its coffin in a flag and watch right-thinking patriots salute as FedEx hauls it over to Arlington for burial.

There isn’t anything more core to what America’s founders thought government of, by and for the people is for than delivering the mail, except maybe raising an army. Both are authorized in the same article in the U.S. Constitution. (The tea party loves them some Article 1, Section 8.) Like the military, the United States Post Office is a public service as well as a public trust. And Republicans such as Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA) want to privatized it because it doesn’t make a profit ? When did the U.S. Army ever turn a profit? This is how conservatives honor the founders’ vision? By dressing up like them and dismantling the country they shed blood to build?

Of course, Republicans (mostly) in Congress are hard at work on privatizing not just the United States Post Office, but the military, too, by diverting work traditionally done by GIs to for-profit, private contractors that can charge a tidy markup to cost-conscious American taxpayers. With hundreds of billions of public dollars on the table, the con is simple. More middle-man profit equals Freedom . No middle man profit equals Tyranny . It’s almost as if they want to dismantle the country’s core infrastructure, to strip America bare — like locusts — of every financial resource before moving on….

Speaking of tyranny, here’s Howie Klein at (Down With Tyranny):

There’s a lot of money to be made in privatizing the post office — not for us, of course, but Wall Street drools at the prospect. And, of course, Republicans and their Blue Dog allies are doing everything in their power to undermine and sabotage the post office for exactly that reason.

At the Huffington Post , Dave Jamieson examines what a post-post office America would look like. Take tiny Syria, Virginia, for example, where for over a hundred years the post office has resided in a walk-in closet-sized office inside Syria Mercantile Company, the village general store. Villagers faced with the closure of this resource may have to drive as far as 20 miles over back-country roads to mail a package or buy stamps.

The absurdity is the insistence by Congress that the United States Post Office operate as a profitable business or go “bankrupt.” As if a constitutionally authorized agency can? As if the Constitution or common sense requires it? Certainly the United States Post Office faces competition in major markets, and from the Internet, but what has that to

Will American Majority Outnumber Gang Of 6?

Dave Johnson — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:40:37 +0000

Our deficit and debt came from cutting taxes on the rich and big corporations, increasing military spending and sweetheart deals with big pharma and health insurance companies. Elite “solutions” always involve cutting back what We, the People do for each other while keeping taxes low for the rich and big corporations. The latest “Gang of 6” solution is being pushed hard, manipulating a sense of inevitability, but is just more of the same. Don’t be fooled, there is significant opposition. Grassroots organizations oppose it, progressives in Congress oppose it and The American Majority opposes it. But you won’t hear that from our elite media.

The Latest Back-Room Deal From Well-To-Do Elites

If you are following the day-by-day accounts of the back-room debt-ceiling “crisis” negotiations, the latest “deal” to emerge out of closed-room, secret negotiations between well-to-do elites is much like all the other deals that come out of closed rooms of well-to-do DC insider types: keep taxes low on the rich and corporations and cut back the things We, the People do for each other and for the non-Wall Street parts of our economy.

These insiders serve the interests of the biggest corporations and the extremely well off, not the interests of regular people, entrepreneurs and small businesses that democracy protects and empowers. Their closed rooms never include low-wage working people, unemployed people, teachers, mechanics, roofers, carpenters, veterinarians, lab technicians, trash collectors, nurses or law-enforcement officers in them.

If all you hear from is America’s elite media you would think the problem is solved and everyone is happy. You would think this is inevitable, and you must go along or be blamed for obstructing. The “gang of 6” deal is supposedly “bipartisan.” They say it is receiving a “warm reception” in Congress. For example, the Washington Post, New debt plan gains support in Senate, describes the “warm response” the proposal received in the Senate,

In the Senate, the plan received a warm response, both during the invitation-only morning session and during separate luncheon briefings for Democrats and Republicans. Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.),the No. 3 Senate Republican, offered strong support. And Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a leader in the GOP on budget issues, backed the plan as well, after dropping out of the Gang of Six in mid-May.

“There was palpable relief from folks in that room this morning. Like they were saying, ‘Here’s something we can actually be for,’ ” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), a Gang of Six member who has relentlessly pressed his colleagues to reach consensus.

And the NY Times is on the bandwagon: Bipartisan Plan for Budget Deal Buoys President,

Financial markets rallied on the news. And with time running out before the deadline of Aug. 2 to raise the government’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, Mr. Obama’s quick embrace of the plan left House Republicans at greater risk of being politically isolated on the issue if they continue to rule out any compromise that includes higher tax revenues.

Higher tax revenues? Actually the deal lowers tax rates for the wealthy and big companies. It raises revenues by removing things like the mortgage interest deduction for the rest of us.

Not So Fast

But if you look at polls you start to see that the American Majority has come to some very different conclusions about how to fix America’s deficit problems. The pubic says solve this problem the same way most economists say we should solve it. The public wants cuts in military spending, and increases in spending on infrastructure and other job-creation, economy-growing investment. The public wants taxes increased on the rich and big corporations. The public does not want Social Security benefits cut. The public wants health care reformed in the ways that the rest of the world has discovered saves money while providing better care.

Not So Fast, says the CPC

The Congressional Progressive Caucus says, “Not so fast!” Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) co-chair Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today released the following statement on the Senate “Gang of Six” budget proposal:

House “Gang of 70-Plus” to Senate “Gang of Six”: We Outnumber Your Plan to Slash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

“This terrible plan could cut Medicare and Medicaid to unsustainably low levels and put seniors’ well-being at risk. Anyone who wants to pass it through Congress should remember that more than 70 House Democrats have already pledged their opposition, and more are signing on every day. The letter we sent to Leader Pelosi July 8 vowing to oppose any cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid as part of these budget negotiations has become a growing wave of House resolve to protect these programs. We’re keeping it open for more signatures, and our Gang of 70-plus has the ‘Gang of Six’ completely outnumbered. Newly minted Rep. Janice Hahn signed on as one of her first official acts as a Congresswoman – that’s how quickly it’s picking up momentum.

Republicans have already said they won’t vote for any package, period, because of their opposition to a functional economy. House Democrats hold the key to whatever plan can pass Congress. That’s why the Senate ‘Gang of Six’ proposal is dead on arrival. Instead of toying with ways to slash vital programs in just such a way as to make different budget numbers align on paper, Congress and the White House should follow the path of our People’s Budget: creating jobs, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, ending corporate subsidies and millionaire tax giveaways, and ensuring our economy works for everyone rather than a greedy few.”

Not So Fast, Says Senator Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders has issued the following statement on a deficit-reduction proposal by a group of senators called the Gang of Six:

“While all of the details from the so-called Gang of Six proposals are not yet clear, what is apparent is that the plan would result in devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other programs that are of vital importance to working families in this country. Meanwhile, tax rates would be lowered for the wealthiest people and the largest, most profitable corporations.

“This is an approach that should be rejected by the American people. At a time when the rich are becoming richer and corporate profits are soaring, at least half of any deficit-reduction package must come from upper income people and profitable corporations. We must also take a hard look at military spending, which has tripled since 1997.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Not So Fast, Says MoveOn

Here s a statement from Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn.org on the Gang of 6 proposal:

“While details are sketchy, the “Gang of 6″ proposal appears to ask seniors, the middle class and the poor to bear the burden of deficit reduction, with cuts to Social Security benefits, billions in stealth cuts to be named later, and no real effort to make corporations and millionaires pay their fair share. MoveOn’s 5 million members are counting on Leader Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and other Democrats to stand by their promise to reject any benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare. We cannot allow a minority of Tea Party led Republicans in the House to hold our nation’s economy hostage in order to protect tax breaks for the rich and corporations, while forcing cuts to programs families depend on. The President and Democrats in Congress must stand up for everyday Americans and not give into politicians more interested in protecting their corporate backers than ensuring our economy recovers.”

Not So Fast, Says Citizens For Tax Justice

Citizens For Tax Justice issued a statement, “Gang of Six” Plan Would Reduce Revenue and Encourage Corporate Tax Dodging,

Because our tax system allows U.S. corporations to indefinitely “defer” U.S. taxes on their offshore profits, it already encourages corporations to move jobs overseas and to disguise their U.S. profits as “foreign” profits by shifting them to tax havens.

There would be even more incentives for corporations to do both these bad things under the “territorial” tax system promoted by corporate lobbyists and included in the Gang of Six plan.

Not So Fast, says Strengthen Social Security Campaign

Nancy Altman, Co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, released a statement (read the full statement here) in response to the release of the Gang of Six’s “Bipartisan Plan to Reduce Our Nation’s Deficits.”

“The Gang of Six proposes immediate and significant cuts to Social Security benefits, and a process for addressing the program’s funding shortfall projected to appear 25 years from now. The process would virtually guarantee devastating cuts. This plan breaks faith with the American people, who overwhelmingly oppose benefit cuts.

“The Gang of Six framework contains very few specifics but one is glaring – the immediate cuts that would affect all 55 million Social Security beneficiaries by changing the way the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is calculated. Their plan would substitute the less accurate and less-generous chained consumer price index (CPI) for the current CPI in calculating the COLA. This breaks a promise made by many politicians to not cut the benefits of anyone over age 55.

Not So Fast, Says American Majority

Polls show the public gets it. Along with the polling data on the American Majority Polling Page, here is some info from recent polls:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal, July,58% want tax increases on the wealthy as part of a deficit solution vs 36%.
Pew Research Poll, June 15-19, 60% say Keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are vs 32% say change them to reduce deficits.
McClatchy/Marist, 64% support raising taxes on income above $250,000.
And finally, this Gallup Poll just out today: Concerns About Economy, Jobs Outweigh Worries About Deficit,

Americans name the economy and unemployment/jobs as the most important problems facing the nation, as they have all year, despite the dominant focus in Washington on the federal debt ceiling. The deficit comes in third as the top problem.

Politicians In Peril

Politicians who are fooled by this manipulated sense of inevitability, and who ignore deficit solutions the public wants, are asking for trouble. If they support these back-room deals made by elites the public won’t support them.

In addition Democrats who support any deal that cuts Social Security and/or Medicare undermine their ability to campaign as the defenders of the people, of Medicare, of Social Security over the interests of the wealthy and giant corporations.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Fact & Fiction on Social Security

Kenneth Quinnell — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:31:28 +0000

I’m writing a series of posts as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations.

Republicans (and some Democrats) have started a full-scale assault on the social safety net that has made America the great country that it is. They are doing what they can to dismantle the safety net and leave the masses to the whims of the so-called “free” market. This market doesn’t actually exist in the real world and it never has on any significant level. The market that exists in the U.S. is rigged. Under the safety net, the market was “rigged” by government in favor of the people, particularly those who are in need. Republicans are seeking to change that and instead rig the market in favor of the rich and corporations. They can’t tell people that, so they are using all kinds of lies and falsehoods to convince people that what they are really doing is based on some higher philosophical principle, whether that be “keeping government off our backs” or allowing people to “keep their own money” or by attacking government programs by saying that they don’t work or can’t work or cost too much. Almost across the board, these arguments are almost always wrong.

I wanted to take a look at a few of these arguments they make and debunk them. None of this is new information, but I haven’t seen it talked about much on the Florida blogs and it’s been a while since I’ve seen the info in one easy-to-find, easily-digestible format.

It’s okay to cut Social Security since no one expects it to be around when they retire anyway: The program is a guarantee to the people who pay into it. They’ve earned the benefits it gives, they aren’t just a privilege.

Social Security is a big contributor to the deficit and debt: Social Security has not contributed a single sent to the deficit or debt. It currently has a $2.7 trillion surplus. That surplus will grow to $3.7 trillion by 2022. It is actually illegal for Social Security to go into deficit mode. The real causes of the deficit and debt growth are the Bush tax cuts, the recession, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stimulus and recovery spending and the bank bailouts.

Times are tough, everyone has to share the sacrifice: Banks and other companies have received massive bailouts and taxes for the rich have been cut. Ending bailouts and making the rich pay their fair share would go much further towards fixing our economic problems than harming Social Security would. It would have added benefit of being the morally correct thing to do.

Social Security is bankrupt and in a crisis: Social Security is fully funded for the next 25 years. After that it can pay 77% of promosed benefits through 2085 and 74% after that, with no changes to the program as it is now.

There is no easy solution to fixing Social Security, so we have to do something difficult: There is a Social Security tax cap on people with wages more than $106,800 a year. If those people paid taxes on all of their income — like everyone else does — there would be no funding problems for Social Security. The program would be fully funded for at least the next 75 years.

The public favors changes and/or cuts to Social Security to reduce the deficit: 15% of the public does. 82% oppose cuts. Even 74% of Tea Party supporters oppose cuts. Similarly, large majorities of Americans oppose cuts to make the program solvent (67% oppose), oppose means testing the program (63%), oppose raising the retirement age to 69 (69%) and support eliminating the tax cap of $106,800 (66% support). The popular solution to potential future problems with Social Security is also the morally correct solution.

Continuing the payroll tax holiday is a good economic solution: The holiday increases corporate profits without stimulating hiring and cuts revenue coming into Social Security. Corporations don’t need a revenue boost. In the first quarter of 2011, they made a record $1.7 trillion in profits and the currently sit on a record $1.9 trillion in liquid assets. Corporations have more money than they’ve ever had and they aren’t hiring. Giving them more, in order to cut other programs, is a terrible idea. The holiday also is one of the worst ways possible to boost economic activity. Moody’s analytics says that extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps and providing direct aid to state governments all boost the economy significantly more than the payroll tax holiday.

Linking the Cost of Living Adjustments (cola) for recipients to the Consumer Price Index is a good solution: Tying cola to the CPI would be a major benefit cut to Social Security recipients and it would get bigger over time. Furthermore, despite Republican claims that their proposals don’t affect current recipients, the cola-CPI change would affect everyone. As it currently exists — even though it hasn’t been applied for two years — the cola is not enough to account for increasing health care costs. If the Republicans proposed Medicare changes are passed, the increase in costs for seniors will consume their entire Social Security check.

Raising the retirement age is a good solution: Raising the retirement age would effectively work out to a 20% cut for retirees. This would disproportionately harm workers in the lower half of the earnings spectrum. These workers have not seen the same increase in life expectancy as the overall population and some groups have seen life expectancy declines, meaning an even bigger benefit cut for those workers. People who work in physically demanding jobs (nearly half of workers over 58) will find it difficult or impossible to extend their careers until they reach 69. Age discrimination also makes it harder for older workers to find jobs.

Means testing Social Security is a good solution: Only 2% of Social Security benefits go to people with an income over $100,000 or more a year, so cutting benefits for them would make little difference in the funding for the program. If the means test were set at a lower level, it would have to have a negative impact on middle class recipients, not just the wealthy.

Social Security is a wasteful program: Less than 1% of program costs go to administrative costs. Social Security is the largest and most successful program in terms of providing aid to the disabled, children, women, veterans and other groups in society. These groups are served very well by Social Security and any cuts to the program will increase poverty and other associated problems for these groups. This is while offering recipients an average of $13-$14,000 per year, making it one of the least generous retirement programs in the world. The program lifts 20 million Americans out of poverty.

Simply put, the program works and works well and cutting it in the name of a fake crisis in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy and take benefits away from our neediest citizens is one of the worst things being discussed in politics in the U.S. right now.

To find sources on the above facts and learn more, go to Strengthen Social Security.

NY-26 Lesson: Don’t Mess With Medicare — Or Social Security!

Dave Johnson — Wed, 25 May 2011 16:16:56 +0000

In 2010 Republicans and corporate front groups ran ad after ad after ad after ad claiming that Democrats had “Cut 500 billion from Medicare.” Those ads brought them the senior vote, and they took the House. Confident in their ability to “create their own reality” they came out with a plan to privatize Medicare and told the public it would save Medicare. Well, last night’s win by Kathy Hochul in the NY-26 special election — with pretty high turnout in a Republican district — shows that the American people are smarter than they look, and figured out what was what. The lesson: don’t mess with Medicare.

Soundly Defeated

Yesterday’s NY-26 Congressional election turned on Medicare and the candidate who supported Medicare won. The candidate who supported the Republican plan to privatize Medicare was soundly defeated.

House Republicans voted to change Medicare from a single-payer plan to a private-insurance voucher plan as a measure to “cut government spending.” Republicans had talked themselves into believing the public hates government as much as they do and therefore gutting it is what the public wants. Instead of working to control health care costs they just shifted those costs away from the government into “personal responsibility” land. In plain non-propagandized English personal responsibility means each of us on our own, alone, instead of all of us watching out for and taking care of each other.

The public figured it out and voted to keep the Medicare-gutter out.

American Majority

The American Majority understands what is going on. They know that our budget problems come from tax cuts, military spending and the lack of jobs. Those are the things the public wants the Congress to fix.

Where the deficits come from:

What the public wants:

Gallup Poll, January 14-16, 2011

64% oppose spending cuts to Medicare.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, February 24-28, 2011

54% believe it will not be necessary to cut spending on Medicare to reduce the national deficit.

76% believe cutting Medicare to help reduce the budget deficit is mostly or totally unacceptable.

60% oppose turning the Medicare system into a government-issued voucher program, which would require the beneficiary to purchase private health insurance.

First Focus and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Poll, April 13-18, 2011

70% oppose cuts/changes to the Medicare system as described in the House Republican Budget.

49% support not reducing funds to Medicare.

53% believe replacing the current Medicare program with a voucher system in which retirees will receive vouchers to use to purchase subsidized insurance from private insurance companies for those 55 or older is totally or mostly unacceptable.

CBS News/The New York Times Poll, April 15-20, 2011

61% believe that Medicare is currently “worth the costs.”

76% think government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage to the elderly.

49% believe higher-income beneficiaries should pay more in taxes.

Bloomberg News Poll, March 4-7, 2011

54% oppose replacing Medicare with a system in which government vouchers would help participants pay for their own health insurance.

76% oppose reducing benefits for Medicare.

Pulse Opinion Research for The Hill Poll, April 28, 2011

53% said they would oppose a reduction in Medicare benefits in order to get the deficit/debt under control.

Pew Research Poll, March 8-14, 2011

65% oppose changes to Social Security as a way to reduce the budget deficit.

More recent polling shows the public has moved to an even strong support for Medicare, and will remove from office anyone who votes to cut it.

Social Security The Same

Those polls don’t just test public support for Medicare, they test support for Social Security as well. The public feels just as strongly that politicians had best keep their hands off our Social Security.

In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Social Security, which is the retirement program for the elderly?
Ohio: 16% support, 80% oppose
Missouri: 17% support, 76% oppose
Montana: 20% support, 76% oppose
Minnesota: 23% support, 72% oppose

Reality Restored

During the Bush years the idea of a “reality-based community” circulated after an article by Ron Suskind about a meeting he had with “a senior advisor to Bush.” In the article he described how the aide scoffed at people who bother with reality:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Republicans and their corporate money tried to create a reality that let them gut Medicare without the public rising up to do something about it. It didn’t work.

Do The Right Thing

Well, reality is coming back. The public is figuring things out. Politicians should learn the lesson of NY-26: don’t mess with Medicare — or Social Security. To fix the deficit fix the causes of the deficit: invest in jobs through maintaining and modernizing our infrastructure, restore top tax rates to where they were before we had huge deficits and, by the way, the Soviet Union is long gone so cut military spending back to maybe only twice our nearest potential competitor.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

I Really Don’t Want to Work ‘Til I Die

Kenneth Quinnell — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:05:37 +0000

I’m writing a series of posts as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations.

Here’s why:

The Strengthen Social Security Campaign launched a new campaign today “Don’t Make Me Work ‘Til I Die” designed to take on the bad assumptions and false solutions for the manufactured “crisis” in Social Security. Check out their launch video:

Social Security was created as a way to eliminate poverty amongst the senior population in the United States. And it is one of the most successful government programs in the history of the planet. It shows that when well-designed and continually re-examined and refined, government has an unparalleled power to solve societal challenges. During the Great Depression and before, the senior community in the United States was plagued with poverty. After Social Security hit its stride, seniors in the U.S. were amongst the senior populations on the planet with the lowest rate of poverty. Social Security works.

And as we are all familiar with now, the politicians in Washington are attempting to fix the ‘crisis’ in Social Security that doesn’t exist. We are told that it’s “going off a cliff,” that it is driving the deficit and the debt and that it’ll go bankrupt if we don’t make drastic changes and make them soon. Both parties in Washington are pushing solutions that are unnecessary and will undercut not only the success of the program, but will create new problems, like making Americans work until they die. That’s simply unconscionable.

And it isn’t needed. For any reason. There are simple solutions that help strengthen Social Security and hurt no one. We need to pressure the president and the members of Congress to pursue these common sense solutions. You can do this on April 27 and 28 and rallies across the nation designed to draw attention to the simple, easy, pain free solutions that will actually make the situation better and call attention to the false solutions being offered.

Go to Work Til We Die.org to find the rally closest to you. Here in Florida, it looks like a number of great events are shaping up in places like Jacksonville, Winter Garden, Palm Harbor, St. Petersburg, West Palm Beach and Miami. This is a pretty big f**kin deal to quote somebody or other out there and you should be a part of it.

Don’t Make Us Work ‘Till We Die!

Dave Johnson — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:27:49 +0000

There was a time on this country when We, the People were in charge, and our government worked for us. Through our government we did things for each other and for our economy, and when we had economic success we paid back toward more such investment. Things are different today and We, the People are no longer in charge. In fact, We, the People are thought of now as “the help.” And lately the Powers That Be have been thinking they aren’t getting quite enough work out of us. So they want to make us Work ‘Till We Die.

" frameborder="0">

The country has a budget deficit caused by tax cuts for the rich, huge increases in military spending, wars, covering problems caused by the Great Recession, and interest on the Reagan/Bush debt. To address these deficits the Powers That Be are coming up with plans to raise the retirement age, eliminate Medicare and cut the rest of the things We, the People do for each other — while, of course, dramatically cutting taxes on the rich.

In response the Strengthen Social Security campaign is launching Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die — a website, actions, video and petition.

Local Actions April 28!

Click here to find an event near you.

Virtual Rally!

If there is no event near you, you can participate in their Virtual Rally.

This is great. Print out a sign and take a picture of yourself holding the sign. Email it to: virtualrally@socialsecurity-works.org with your City & State in the subject line, and be part of the Virtual Rally.

Sign ideas:
* Don’t Make Me Work ‘Til I Die
* Don’t Make My Kids to Work ‘Til They Die
* Make Your Own

What Others Are Saying

Left In Alabama: Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die,

There will be rallies in 18 states — 52 of them at last count — on April 27 and 28 where current retirees will demonstrate how hard or even impossible it would be for them to continue working at the jobs they retired from.

Digby: Don’t Make Us Work Until We Die.

Evidently, this is the new fate for many more of the elderly. Between raising the retirement age, skimping on the benefits, wage stagnation and economic wipe-outs like the Great Recession, young and old alike will be competing for all those low paying jobs. But since three and four generations will all have to live under the same roof, perhaps they can come up with some sort of job share concept so that they can work in shifts and someone will be at home to take care of the children. As long as it doesn’t inconvenience the employer, of course.

Richard Eskow at Ourfuture.org: Work ‘Til You Die: The Alternate American Reality -- And The Reality

The retirement age is already scheduled to increase, and raising it even more is nothing less than cruel. That idea’s part of the political trend toward “austerity economics,” a resurgent anti-government ideology that’sengendered a wave of enthusiastic -- no, make that orgiastic prose -- from well-fed pundits. Their display of almost snuff-movie-like excitement should have been predictable, but I found it shocking anyway.

AFL-CIO Now Blog: Tell Lawmakers, ‘Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die’,

There is a scary scenario in store if the Republican budget, drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, is ever implemented. Take a look at this new video from Strengthen Social Security, Don’t Cut It, that takes us to a new dimension where “politicians are cutting our Social Security and Medicare and forcing us work until we die.”

The Serlingesque video is part of a new campaign to fight back against the Republican budget and other proposals to raise the retirement age, turn Medicare over to Big Insurance and slash Medicaid for seniors, children and people with disabilities.

Next week on April 27 and 28 in more than 50 cities in 18 states, activists from the Strengthen Social Security, Don’t Cut It coalition—the AFL-CIO and the Alliance for Retired Americans are part of the coalition—will hold events at congressional district offices to tell their lawmakers hands off Social Security. Click here to find an event near you.

The Main Street blog

Everyone who has worked in a physically demanding job knows what increasing the retirement age will mean. It’s one thing to preach the necessity of this from behind a desk in a cushy office. It’s another thing to be a miner, nurse, truck driver, cook, carpenter, janitor, or a waiter at age 67 -- if our bodies last that long. For those who are among the still unemployed/underemployed, and over the age of 55, the promise of Social Security in the future is what keeps us going. We can’t let them pull the rug out from under seniors who have worked long and hard, and paid in to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Dean Baker at CEPR: Why Do Real Men Want to Cut Social Security?

It really speaks volumes about the nature of politics in Washington that in order to be accepted as a serious participant in the budget debates, it is now necessary to affirm a willingness to cut Social Security. This is bizarre from many different angles.

RootsWire

BennyHollywood,

Blue Hampshire

Suburban Guerrilla

Ellen’s Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog: Days of Action to Protect Social Security/Medicare,

April 27th and 28th will be days of action to protect Social Security and Medicare. The themes are “Don’t Make Me Work Until I Die” and “Don’t Make My Kids Work Until They Die.” Here’s the video:

… If you’re ok with foregoing retirement and health care when you need it most so some CEO of a multinational can walk away with billions (trillions) and take his jobs to India, China and Pakistan, then go ahead and vote for Republicans and do nothing on April 27th and 28th, but if you want US jobs and a US middle class that provides for a dignified retirement, then join Strengthen Social Security for its events, virtually if you cannot make a meeting.

Crooks and Liars

Treehugger

susan the bruce

Dirigo Blue: SAVE THE DATE: Day of Action for Social Security: Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

Social Security “Cannot Exist” Says Rep. Cantor, House Majority Leader

Dave Johnson — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:30:49 +0000

From Campaign for America’s Future:

Help Fight Cantor’s Quest to Eliminate Social Security

Last week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said out loud what he really thinks: He believes Social Security “cannot exist.” At all. For anyone.

This week NPR played Cantor’s remarks to the conservative Hoover Institution: He declared: “So we’ve got to protect today’s seniors. But for the rest of us? For -- you know, listen. We’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.”

These guys say things like this at right-wing think tanks, expecting that the folks back home won’t hear them. We want to make sure every person in Rep. Cantor’s congressional district hears those words straight from his mouth.

The Campaign for America’s Future isn’t letting Rep. Cantor get away with it. We have a TV ad that will let his constituents know about his extreme opposition to Social Security. But we need your help to get it on the air. The more you can donate, the more we can get his constituents to see the ad and the more we can spread the truth, and put him on the hot seat.

Click here to help us keep this ad on the air »

Here is what CAF sent out in an email:

Help us expose Rep. Eric Cantor’s plan to make sure Social Security “cannot exist.” Contribute $10, $25 or $50 to our ad campaign.

This week NPR played Cantor’s remarks to the conservative Hoover Institution: He declared: “So we’ve got to protect today’s seniors. But for the rest of us? For -- you know, listen. We’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.”

These guys say things like this at right-wing think tanks, expecting that the folks back home won’t hear them. We want to make sure every person in Rep. Cantor’s congressional district hears those words straight from his mouth.

Check out our hard-hitting ad. Then help us get it on the air.

Help us expose Rep. Eric Cantor’s plan to make sure Social Security “cannot exist.” Contribute $10, $25 or $50 to our ad campaign.

A significant ad buy in Rep. Cantor’s central Virginia district would only require 100 supporters to donate $50 each.

But the more you can donate, the more we can get his constituents to see the ad and the more we can spread the truth, and put him on the hot seat.

Help us expose Rep. Eric Cantor’s plan to make sure Social Security “cannot exist.” Contribute $10, $25 or $50 to our ad campaign.

All year, the Campaign for America’s Future has been leading the fight to protect Social Security. And our polling shows that big majorities across the country want to strengthen Social Security – including in Cantor’s district.

We helped stop the President from embracing disastrous Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address. Now, let’s make sure the Republicans know what they’re in for if they try to abolish one of American’s most successful, and most popular programs.

Thank you for all of your support.

Sincerely,

Roger Hickey, Co-director
Campaign for America’s Future

Social Security Roundup for 3/15

Kenneth Quinnell — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:05:36 +0000

I’m writing a series of posts as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations.

*Anti-cuts rallies at 75 offices / World / Home – Morning Star: It is good to see people getting angry enough to fight back against right-wing assaults on Social Security.

*Washington Post / Post-election Obama administration winners and losers emerge: This article says that the elderly are winners in the post-November election losses that Democrats suffered. They say that Barack Obama has taken off the table the ideas of raising the retirement age or reducing benefits. I hope they are right in suggesting the strength of that position.

*GOP aide snipes at Dem Social Security letter – On Congress – POLITICO.com: Is it legitimate for Politico to write an entire article about what some unnamed Republican aide says about what actual public servants chosen by the people say? Probably not.

*Social Security Administration Offers Early Retirement to Its Workers – FoxNews.com: A bit ironic that Republican cuts to Social Security’s operating funds are leading to Social Security employees getting better retirement deals that Social Security actually offers its recipients.

*Tax cut has little impact on economy in January – BusinessWeek: So the Social Security tax holiday, that is a bad idea from a funding-the-government and cutting-the-budget-deficit perspective, turns out to also not be helping stimulate the economy. This is what happens when you listen to conservatives for ideas to “fix” the economy.

*Blue Hampshire: Politics ::: Social Security: If You Can’t Kill The Program, Screw The People: Again, the Republican idea is to be in charge of a government program so they can weaken it so it can’t do its job and then complain about how the program isn’t doing its job so they can get rid of it.

*World Net Daily | 58% of Americans want government shut down: 100% of bloggers writing this post think this poll is nonsense. It is not at all far-fetched to think that the right would fake poll results so they can go on television and say “we’re only doing the will of the people.”

*GOP Strategy: Cut Medicaid, Leave Social Security Alone? | Mother Jones: If there ever was a time for the left to capitalize on the overreach of the other side and really do what is possible and legal to dominate the message battle, this is the time. We’re right on the issue and the public agrees with us. If we fight back strongly, we win not only this battle, but a lot more. If we don’t fight back strongly enough, we could lose this battle, too.

*Keep Social Security strong – The Hill’s Congress Blog: A good personal story about why keeping Social Security like it is now is very important.

*Means-Testing And The Retirement Age – The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan: Means-testing Social Security, according to Paul Krugman, won’t do much to improve the fiscal outlook of Social Security, but it is a symbolic move in the right direction.

*Boehner Aims to Tame Benefits Programs – WSJ.com: Boehner says that people don’t understand how big the problem is, which is correct, only the problem isn’t Social Security and Medicare, it’s people like Boehner lying to the people.

*Tea Party voters, by almost 2-1, oppose Social Security cuts | Jay Bookman: Seems to contradict the poll cited by World Net Daily above and shows that Tea Partiers aren’t 100% crazy.

*Huffington Post | Moderate Dems Form Group To Cut Spending: Every time I see the term “moderate Democrat,” I see it followed by news about Democrats adopting Republican policies. That’s not moderate.

*Boehner promises Obama GOP cover if he takes first step on entitlement reform – TheHill.com: Perfect reason why Obama should not pursue any of these reforms is that Boehner likes them. And if Obama believes that Boehner wouldn’t like about this, he’s not paying attention.

FactCheck.org Gets It Wrong When They Say Democrats Are Wrong on Social Security and the Deficit

Kenneth Quinnell — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:36:33 +0000

I’m writing a series of posts as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations.

FactCheck.org gets it wrong on Social Security:

Here’s what they say:

Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute “one penny” to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.

A key tell is given away a bit later, and it explains why they are wrong:

Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone.

Social Security did pay for itself during this time period, but bipartisan Washingtonians took the surplus that would’ve paid out anything that is being borrowed from elsewhere to pay for it now and spent that money on other things. Social Security surpluses weren’t supposed to “allow Congress to spend more freely for other things,” they were supposed to make sure that the program is solvent when there are changes in the economy and makeup of the recipient pool. Congress took that money and wasted it elsewhere, that’s why other money is necessary to cover some of the costs now and, more importantly, in years to come. Politifact decides to let Congress slide on this particular issue and, in doing so, undercuts a key defense of the program — that if left alone or put in the “lockbox” Al Gore suggested, the program would be in great shape. It’s still in good shape, but it would’ve been even better if it wasn’t for Congress and the president taking the money and using it elsewhere as part of their tax cut fervor that began in 1994.

FactCheck does correctly point out that the “payroll tax holiday” is a factor that makes this situation worse, but then they make their analysis falls apart again shortly after. Under a section labeled “Facts vs. Spin,” they say this:

But as we’ve seen, the president’s statement doesn’t back up what Durbin said, and Lew chose his words carefully in his USA Today article. We agree with Lew that Social Security does not “cause our deficits,” at least not by itself.

The word “cause” here is past tense. That would mean that previous deficits would have to, in some way, have been contributed to by Social Security shortfalls. They only provide evidence, though, that the shortfall in Social Security added to the deficit in 2010, in the amount of $37 billion. There is a projection for slightly more ($45 billion) in 2011, but that hasn’t happened yet, so, by their data, Social Security added to one deficit, 2010, and may add to more, so saying that Social Security in any way “causes” our deficits, even in part, doesn’t match up with the data. The suggestion that $37 billion out of a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit is somehow a cause of the deficit is akin to saying that the fact that I had to file for bankruptcy last year was caused by that extra cheeseburger I bought at McDonald’s last year. While it technically adds to the overall total, it’s far from a cause and it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is part of the cause.

Social Security Round-Up for 2/28

Kenneth Quinnell — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 05:03:04 +0000

The latest stories and commentary in the battle to save America’s most successful government program.

I’m writing a series of posts as a blogging fellow for the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 270 national and state organizations.

(Okay, finally caught up on these, after this post, only new stories with my commentary added…)

*Nancy Altman: The GOP's Latest Plan to Undermine Social Security:

Imagine that you bought an insurance policy that guaranteed you $1,100 a month starting at age 62. When you tried to collect, you couldn’t reach an agent on the phone, so you went to the office during its business hours, but the office was closed. When you finally found a day when the office was open, the overwhelmed employees made you wait hours and then told you that you would have to wait longer than usual to start getting your first monthly check because the agency had decided to cut back its hours, even though it was running a profit.

This could happen to you. You have purchased a retirement insurance annuity, as well as life insurance and disability insurance, and have paid for all the associated administrative costs, through deductions from your paycheck, the ones labeled “FICA” or “Social Security.” Congress places a limit on what the Social Security Administration can spend, but the money is yours, deducted straight from your paychecks, solely for payment of Social Security’s promised benefits and associated administrative costs.

…

But the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to strip away $1.7 billion from the already underfunded agency, money that is needed simply to keep offices open. If the Republicans’ budget plan goes through, the entire agency, including all 1,300 field offices might have to close for a month. A letter in anticipation of this has already been sent out to all employees. The phones would not be answered, and claims processing would halt. Around 700,000 workers who had purchased annuities and paid for the overhead would be forced into a backlog. Even worse, given the well documented need to replace SSA’s aging computer system, the Republicans’ proposed cuts threaten the whole program, if the current system and its backup were to fail before the building of the new system, already behind schedule, were completed.

No business would take these steps with its most popular product. No one is claiming there is waste. To the contrary, SSA is extremely efficient, spending less that one penny of every dollar on administration, with the other 99 cents going for our benefits. A private corporation would love to have this level of efficiency. So why are the Republicans, who claim they want the government to be more like business, deliberately seeking to undermine its most successful product?

*Richard (RJ) Eskow: "Entitlement Reform" Is a Euphemism For Letting Old People Get Sick and Die:

George Orwell would be proud. The latest Washington catchphrase deserves a place of honor in the 1984 lexicon, right between “War Is Peace” and “Love Is Hate.” It’s a virus of the language that’s spreading faster than the stomach flu.

“The President’s budget punts on entitlement reform,” reads a statement by House Republicans. “Our budget will lead where the President has failed, and it will include real entitlement reforms.” “You have to do entitlement reforms if you are serious about this budget,” says Rep. Paul Ryan.

Reality check: Nobody’s proposing ‘entitlement reform.’ That term is a cloaking device for some very ugly intentions. It’s a meaningless manufactured phrase cooked up by some highly-paid consultant, and it diminishes the sum total of human understanding every time it’s used. The phrase is a euphemism for deep cuts to programs that are vital and even life-saving for millions of elderly and poor people, but it’s politically unpalatable to say that. So it became necessary to come up with yet another cognition-killing term designed to numb us from the human toll of our political actions. “Entitlement reform” is the new “collateral damage.”

But this time the collateral damage is us.

*FactCheck Gets It Wrong on Social Security and the Deficit | CEPR Blog:

FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenburg Public Policy Center, wrongly attacked a number of prominent Democrats for correctly pointing out that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. The people attacked, included New York Senator Charles Schumer, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, and President Obama’s Budget Director Jacob Lew, who had all correctly pointed out that Social Security does not contribute to the budget deficit.

This point should be pretty straightforward. Under the law, Social Security is financed by a designated tax, the 12.4 percent payroll that workers pay on their first $107,000 of income each year. The money raised through this tax is used to pay benefits. Any surplus is used to buy U.S. government bonds. All funding for the program comes either from this tax or from the bonds held by the program’s trust fund. (The Social Security system is also is credited with a portion of the income tax paid on Social Security benefits.)

Social Security is prohibited from spending any money beyond what it has in its trust fund. This means that it cannot lawfully contribute to the federal budget deficit, since every penny that it pays out must have come from taxes raised through the program or the interest garnered from the bonds held by the trust fund.

*Robert J. Elisberg: The Republican Attention Deficit Disorder:

Before people can have a rational discussion, they have to agree on certain basic facts. And that’s one of them.

Republicans in Congress do not care about the budget deficit.

Yes, I know there’s going to be a lot of squealing now. How that’s not true at all, how only Republicans care about fiscal responsibility. How this is just typical liberal blather. So, as a public service, there, it’s been said.

But of course, what is said out of one side of the mouth doesn’t mean it matches the reality and facts of the other side. And just because Republicans, conservatives and members of the “Tea Party” corporations have been convinced by what they’ve been fed, that doesn’t make it true either. The reality remains:

Republicans in Congress do not care about the budget deficit.

Consider reality…

*Huckabee: Eliminate Government Unions And Slash Entitlements For Poor Public Servants Like Me | TPMDC:

At an elegantly catered tea-time roundtable fête with reporters Wednesday afternoon, likely Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said public sector unions ought to be entirely eliminated, or hamstrung to limit worker benefits and influence over elected officials. During the same session, though, he admitted that a life of public service, and running for public office, has left him without a sizable nest egg. In fact, he acknowledged that he wants to delay a final decision about the presidential campaign so he can put away more of the big-time private sector money he’s currently making.

*Milbank Misses on the “Hard Truths” About Social Security « Social Security Media Watch Project:

In his “Washington Sketch,” Dana Milbank suggested that New Jersey governor Chris Christie “tells ugly truths.” One “truth” he points to is Christie’s claim that “You’re going to have to raise the retirement age for Social Security.” For Milbank, Christie’s willingness to state this claim in a straightforward way sets him apart from the typical “blow dried politician who says whatever the voters want to hear.”

The problem is that Christie’s “ugly truth” about Social Security isn’t actually true. Christie echoes the mainstream media’s frequently repeated claim that to maintain the long-term solvency of Social Security we must raise the retirement age or cut benefits in some other way. But Social Security isn’t expected to have a shortfall for another 26 years, and even then its projected shortfall will be manageable (if no changes to the system are made, Social Security will still be able to pay 75 to 78 percent of scheduled benefits after 2036). This long-term funding gap in Social Security could easily be closed by raising revenues for the system; cutting benefits is simply not necessary.

*The only hoax here is the so-called crisis | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/21/2011:

First, the retirement program has a $2.6 trillion surplus; it’s an island of green in a sea of red ink. Second, virtually all of the nation’s long-term deficit can be blamed on interest on the national debt and rising health-care costs. Third, the idea that pensions must be cut relies on two assumptions: that the Social Security program is in trouble, and that its revenues cannot be increased – neither of which withstands examination.

*Hullabaloo:

It’s true that our political dialog is focused on some problems that are not acute while ignoring those that are. But you’ll notice that it’s not the Tea Party agenda actually being enacted so much as the Tea Party’s corporate owners. They are making a big play to completely defund and totally defang the left. The real Tea Party agenda (culture war issues) is being passed in the House, but it’s mostly bread and circuses — and it’s keeping liberals occupied playing defense. (In this environment you can’t take anything for granted — you never know who the Democrats will sacrifice.)These irrational budget “fixes” are shock doctrine moves, obviously coordinated by the GOP down to the state level.

*Blaming Social Security For Deficits Is Like Blaming Iraq For 9/11 (And Unions In WI) | OurFuture.org:

Isn’t it funny how the corporate conservatives always offer the same solutions to every problem? Even when the solution doesn’t really have much to do with the problem? Iraq didn’t attack us, and Social Security doesn’t have anything to do with deficits. But the “solution” to 9/11 was to attack Iraq, and the proposed “solution” to deficits is to “fix” Social Security. And the “solution” to state budget crises is to get rid of public employee unions. Why?

Got a crisis? A tax cut will fix it. Getting rid of unions will fix it. Privatizing Social Security will fix it. And gutting government solves everything. Doesn’t even matter what the problem is!

*Top Obama Economic Aide: Social Security Reform Not A Part Of Discussion On Fiscal Future:

The latest move in that direction came on Tuesday, when Jason Furman, deputy director of the President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, insisted that talk of Social Security reform “is not one you care about” if “you are worried about our long-run fiscal future.”

“The reason you care about it is because you want to strengthen Social Security,” Furman added in a speech at the progressive nonprofit group NDN. “It is such a critical part of our social insurance, the bedrock of retirement security for senior citizens, one of the leading anti-poverty programs for children, critical support for people with disabilities. And for all those reasons and the fact that its solvency … is another 26 years, till 2037, the real motivation is strengthening the program.”

*ThinkProgress » McCain On Social Security: ‘It’s A Ponzi Scheme That Bernie Madoff Would Be Proud Of’

At one point, the host asked McCain about the future solvency of the Social Security program. The host asked if there’s a simple solution to future shortfalls like saying that “everyone that’s under 50, you get to retire at 67.” McCain replied by saying that the program could be changed by increasing the eligibility for benefits by “a month every year or so” or by lifting the payroll tax cap. He went on to malign the program, saying that the system is “basically…already” bankrupt and that it’s a “Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would be proud of”

*ThinkProgress » GOP Rep. Huizenga: Raising The Social Security Age For Future Retirees Is Fine Because ‘I’m Gonna Be Okay’:

Rep. Bill Huzeinga (R-MI) championed these regressive cuts to Social Security during an appearance on Fox News last week. During a discussion about the federal budget deficit, Huzeinga said that we “certainly” should be having a “conversation” about raising the retirement age for Social Security. He explained that at a recent town hall meeting, a constituent complained about these cuts, and that Huzeinga responded by telling him, “Look, I’m 42. I’ll be 106 when these recommendations, if we adopted them right now, would actually come into place. I’m gonna be okay”

*Daily Kos: OMB Director Jacob Lew: Social Security isn't the problem:

The problem there is the horse already left the barn on the revenue side of things with the tax-cut deal. Yes, there’s a mismatch between outlays and revenues and the deal allows that mismatch to continue. Complicating this more for Social Security is the payroll tax holiday, and the revenues that will be lost for the program during a time when high unemployment is already creating a hit on it. So the difficulty for the administration in trying to create a parallel process for budget negotiation in which Social Security is strengthened is going to be next to impossible. Getting Social Security strengthened in this environment is going to be a massive challenge. At this point, just leaving it out of the negotiations entirely seems to be the saftest bet.