Can Right-Wingers and Plutocrats Be Stopped from Destroying Social Security?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/can-right-wingers-and-plutocrats-be-stopped-destroying-social-security



A new effort to build bipartisan consensus on fortifying Social Security was unveiled in Washington on Friday that shows the promise and perils of the evolving debate on the how tens of millions of aging Americans will support themselves in coming years.

On the promising side, an extensive public engagement process by a new centrist group, the Program for Public Consultation (PCP), found vast bipartisan agreement to strengthen Social Security now through progressive tax increases and even increasing some benefits. On the perilous side, the starting line for its discussion is the tedious rightwing drumbeat about revenue shortfalls two decades from now, which distract from focusing on today’s retirement security crisis and what steps can address more immediate human needs.

“They did not brief respondents on the retirement crisis or ask them if they had saved enough for retirement,” said an analyst with one of the more progressive reform groups, who attended the PCP briefing but commented on background. “So respondents were tasked with the narrow job of eliminating the shortfall, rather than devising the best Social Security policy.”

After several decades where the political debate on Social Security has been dominated by right-wingers who want to either eliminate, privatize or cut it, there’s new momentum in Washington to step back and starting discussing how Social Security can be fixed for today’s recipients and Americans who will soon retire. Like all political debates, how the problem is defined has a lot to do with what solutions are offered.

[Swede Atlanta]

1. My disgust with the debate about Social Security is this.......

The same people who want to cut benefits are the same people whose policies have given us the historical income inequality we see today.

I would be more open to looking at "reforming" social security if
(1) Wages had not been stagnant and workers had seen at least some of the huge increase in profitability over the past 30 years
(2) There had been a clear consensus around the need to reduce the future expense of the program and for at least 2-3 generations people had been encouraged and given tools to save to augment social security income. The first requirement for this is (1) - living wages that give people a chance to get ahead
(3) We had multiple programs, separate from employment, that provided viable investment and savings options for lower income individuals. The likes of Fidelity, Ameriprise, etc. really aren't interested in someone who may only invest $1K a year. They want larger portfolios.

But since the average American can barely keep their heads above water let alone save for a child's post-secondary education (college, trade school, etc.), a rainy day or retirement, social security is basically all that many Americans will have to live on in their later years. That's why we need to be talking about improving the program, increasing benefits to at least some recipients, etc. NOT reducing benefits.

If the 1% don't like the amount of money SS is costing then they need to accept eliminating or at least raising the SS income cap, giving up corporate subsidies and increasing marginal rates at the top to reduce and eventually eliminate the budget and start paying down the debt.

But they won't. They have all theirs and they want more. And a place they can see for getting more is to take food out of the mouths of hungry children and our seniors.

[OLDMDDEM]

3. Social Security

I applaud your response to this news item. Social Security is not the problem in this country. It is the greed of those in Congress and the fact that they borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund and have to pay it back. Paying it back is stuck in their craw and creates a distaste for the fund. Threats to change the program are simply that - - threats. It is political suicide to touch the fund since it does not add one dime to our debt. Congress simply does not want to pay it back. Social Security it not a problem, Congress is.

[SamKnause]

2. The question that should be asked;

Can Democratic and Progressive politicians be stopped from bipartisanship with the insane Republicans and Tea Party ?