Agency Running Social Security to Push Change -NYT

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to persuade the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution.

The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action.

Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support the agenda of President Bush.

But agency employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy.

"Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda,"........
...
Deborah C. Fredericksen of Minneapolis, who has worked for the Social Security Administration for 31 years, said, "Many employees believe that the president and this agency are using scare tactics to promote private accounts."
http://nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/16benefit.html?hp&ex=1105851600&en=8adcb7ce5d74cac7&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[chomskysright]

1. thanks: have funneled to senators.....

this administration is one big cabal of mother-fuckers.

[lancdem]

27. Josh Marshall agrees

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

So do I.

[The Zanti Regent]

37. This is a CLEAR violation of the Hatch Act.

It is ILLEGAL for Federal Civil Servats to engage in partisan activity while on the job!

WRITE YOUR SENATORS, CONGRESSPERSON, AARP, BLOG, ETC. NOW!

[chomskysright]

2. thanks: have funneled to senators.....

this administration is one big cabal of mother-fuckers.

[cornermouse]

3. Isn't this close to a conflict of interest or something?

[nashville_brook]

9. and your point ?? sarcasm not directed at poster :)

i wish there were an emoticon that came CLOSE to the anger i am having with these fuckers.

the biggest threat they throw at us rhetorically is that we "hate" america. holy fucking crap, how can you not hate this? i hate what we are becoming. i hate the openess of their hubris. i hate the blindness around me. i hate that i have to go to costco out in the 'burbs and have to see repukes today.

but i'm not going to canada.
i'll be going south. mexico -- panama. trinidad.

[shanti]

18. there is an emoticon

:grr:

btw, what's the 411 on trinidad? are their immigration requirements "meetable"? i like that island (and the caribbean) too.

[nashville_brook]

26. i guess that one works for me -- still seems too cute

i know it's easier to immigrate to the carribean than to some modern european countries, which isn't saying much. costa rica is supposed to be fairly do-able too. i'll see if i can't find any solid info and post a thread in GD.

[shanti]

41. thank you!

you can im me the info if you get it. i'm serious about retiring in the caribbean too.

[stray cat]

4. Government agencys and propaganda

This is terrible for a democracy.

[papau]

16. 21 facts not in Bush/SSA message because they prove Bush a liar

21 reasons/facts w/ links on how Bush;s Soc Sec Plan is based on lies

21 REASONS WHY PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA AND IN FACT IS MISLEADING :

(WAYS TO INNOCULATE YOURSELF AGAINST THE ONCOMING MEDIA BLITZ):

A story of how Social Security is not like a 'pig in a python' (but that's what Bush and company are telling you)We are being scammed to pay for the war on Iraq & associated deficits


You will notice that points have references; see those references at the end of these points. This is not intended to be an 'academic presentation'; thus, the URL's which you can check for yourself.



1. WHO WANTS THE CHANGE AND HOW WILL THEY 'FRAME' THE ISSUE? Wall Street wants privatization in order reap a windfall profit. Everyone else should be very suspicious. If the stock market goes down, your benefits go down.

This is what you will hear from Bush and company: "right now we are on an unsustainable course." They say, 'its unfixable as it is.' They will say: 'the problem will just grow and grow as more and more boomers come on board to obtain their Social Security benefits.' They will say: "the trust fund is empty.

Quite the contrary: Social Security funds are actually increasing and....and will actually expand for 10 more years because of the interest it receives from Treasury bonds. Could it be that Bush and company are worried because, "the government has already used the annual surpluses to finance its operating deficits." (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)

That's right: Bush and company have used the surplus which usually accumulates along with the principal money in order to do something about the deficit that they have created over the past 4 years.



2. EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE SURPRISED: WAS THIS 'TWEAKING' OF SOCIAL SECURITY MEANT TO TAKE PLACE PERIODICALLY? : YES "What people forget is that the baby boom is not like a pig in the python," said Kent Smetters, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a former senior official in Mr. Bush's Treasury Department. "If you just balance it over the next 75 years, it just means we have to come back and do the same thing all over again about 15 years from now," Professor Smetters said. (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)



3. WHY ARE WE BEING TOLD WE NEED TO 'DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY'? The nation's baby boomers start to retire at the end of this decade and relatedly the cost of retirement benefits is expected to rise much faster than payroll taxes from active workers. Obviously, payments become higher with each generation of retirees, even after accounting for inflation. By 2042, the trust fund will have used up its reserves and payroll taxes will cover only about 70 percent of the promised benefits.


4. WON'T WE HAVE TO PAY FOR CHANGING TO PRIVATE ACCOUNTS?? HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST US? : the Bush administration deems the current system, with its average monthly benefit of $955, as too generous (that's less than $12,000/ year). The Bush Administration wants to cut benefits by more than 40% to help pay the trillions of dollars that would be needed for the creation and maintenance of private accounts. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41481

This doesn't make sense given that now Social Security is the most efficient government system ever instigated, utilizing only 1% of the overall funds to manage the monthly Social Security payments for millions of people. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. The Social Security System is legally separate from the rest of the budget. Bush wants to discontinue that. This will make it difficult it not impossible to track in terms of is the Social Security money really being used for other purposes like making war on Iraq.

Where's all that money right now? "The Social Security trust fund has accumulated more than $1.5 trillion in reserves, held in Treasury bonds." (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)



5. WHO IN BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION IS DRIVING THE MATTER? Karl Rove, Bush's right hand man: He is attempting to convince the public that Social Security is 'heading for an iceberg." )http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950 )


4. WHY WOULD KARL ROVE WANT TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? Rove sees it as : “one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times,....“We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course,” the e-mail said. “That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the precondition to authentic reform.....government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals,” said Wehner, the director of White House Strategic Initiatives. " Who is this Wehner? : Peter Wehner, the deputy to White House political director Karl Rove. Thus, Rove is attempting to continue the line of 'getting government out of your lives' which is a recipe to allow corporations unbridled power and individuals no retirement through Social Security. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/679195


5. WHAT STRATEGIES ARE BEING UTILIZED IN ORDER TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC OF THE NEED FOR PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY?: "The administration has suggested that it would be justified in borrowing some $2 trillion to establish private accounts because doing so would head off $10 trillion in future
Social Security liabilities. It's bad enough that the $10 trillion is a highly inflated figure, intended to overstate a problem that is reasonably estimated at $3.7 trillion or
even considerably less. Worse are the true dimensions of the administration's proposed ploy, which were made painfully clear in a memo that was leaked to the press last week. Written in early January by Peter Wehner.".....(Rove's right hand person):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0

6. WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE RE: THIS PRIVATIZATION EFFORTS PER BUSH/ ROVE / THE REPUBLICANS? : "Revamping the system to allow investment accounts would not shore up the future finances and would make the financial picture worse. The administration is considering borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion to continue paying benefits to current retirees while tax revenue is diverted into personal accounts, called transition costs, Wehner's e mail said (per this article, this e mail was verified by the White House). Separately, to address the future financial shortfall, the administration is looking at plans to cut future promised benefits, by 46 percent in some cases, with investments expected to make up the difference." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/679195


7. WHO ELSE UNDERLINES THAT THIS IS WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY OCCUR? : " The real impact of President Bush's Social Security privatization scheme: massive cuts in promised benefits. The White House is expected to propose a new system of calculating Social Security benefits called "price indexing." The technical change would mean "cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades" – with even deeper cuts in the future. For example, if the "price indexing" change is made, "a retiree in 2075 would receive 54 percent of the benefits now promised." David C. John, a Social Security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation called the proposal "very much like sticking your hand in a wasp nest.": American Progress Action Fund" <[e-mail]


8. WHAT ARE SOME POINTS THAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO HEAR FROM BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS? Talk about: PRICE INDEXING: The current method of calculating Social Security benefits is adjusted to reflect the standard of living when a person retires. That means when your benefits are calculated based on your average earnings, the salary you made 25 years ago is adjusted upwards to reflect the overall rise in wages (wage growth) since that time. The "price indexing" plan, expected to be proposed by Bush, would make that adjustment based on the rise of consumer prices – essentially the inflation rate. Since wages rise much faster than inflation, that means your newly adjusted salary will be lower. The end result is far lower benefits for every new generation of retirees. If this system had been in place since Social Security's inception, people today would be retiring with a benefit tied to the living standard of the 1930s, when 40 percent of households lacked indoor plumbing.: [e-mail]


9. WHAT ELSE CAN WE EXPECT TO COME OUT WAY RE: THIS PUSH FOR PRIVATIZATION? : You will hear talk about how it will be cheaper in the long-run to privatize at least part of Social Security. Specifically, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims, "The cost is $10 trillion if we do nothing. So what you're talking about would be a significant savings over those costs." There are two problems with this argument. First, the $10 trillion figure grossly distorts the modest long-range deficit of the Social Security program by projecting that shortfall over eternity. (There is no shortfall at all until 2052. Projections beyond 2052, obviously, are extremely unreliable.) Second, and more fundamentally, "borrowing $2 trillion to fund individual accounts does nothing to reduce Social Security's long-term deficit." Under the Bush plan the long-term deficit is reduced through deep benefit cuts.:
mailto: [e-mail]

10. WHAT ARE SOME OTHER MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH RETIREMENT SAVINGS THAT WILL BE BOUGHT UP? The Thrift Savings Plan: what is it land what might be the downsides of such a model, which could be part of the Rovian onslaught?
the Thrift Savings Plan could serve as a possible model for personal investment accounts in Social Security.
Numerous readers said the two programs are unrelated and that the TSP, which relies on federal payroll systems for its basic operation, cannot be replicated on a scale as large as Social Security. Others said a column about the plan failed to stress that the TSP is a voluntary savings program that supplements Social Security, a tax-based program. Cavanaugh's paper (The paper, "Feasibility of Social Security Individual Accounts," was published by the AARP Public Policy Institute. AARP is opposing Bush's plan), for example, says that personal accounts in Social Security will cost more to manage than those in the TSP, in part because the TSP can rely on hundreds of federal agencies to administer payroll deductions and provide retirement planning and other services.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2005Jan9.html?referrer=email

11. SO THE THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN APPEARS TO WORK FOR LARGER PERSONAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, YES? The paper also points out that TSP operates on a progressive fee system (usually 60 cents per $1,000 account balance) so that holders of the higher account balances absorb part of the cost of maintaining smaller accounts. Such a fee system would not work in Social Security because too many accounts would be small, the paper contends. Social Security relies on the government to absorb inflation and market risks, while the TSP shifts those risks to individual investors, Cavanaugh writes. "Attempts to combine these two fundamentally different programs are like mating a bear with a bee -- somebody is going to get hurt," he concludes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-20 ...


12. WHY DOES WALL STREET WANT THE CHANGE? In the background, beyond private accounts, are various proposals to cut guaranteed Social Security
benefits in the future.


13. BUT WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER DEPRESSION AS IN 1929: wrong: In 1973-74, the stock
market lost 48 percent of its value. The stock market is a very dangerous place to put money



14. WHO DOES NOT WANT THE CHANGE? (1) AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, is coming out
strongly against President Bush's plan to allow private individual accounts
within Social Security. (2) On January 10, 2005, a NY Times Opinion piece stated this: "In this and other ways, the administration is manipulating
information - a tacit, yet devastating, acknowledgement, we believe, that an informed public would reject privatizing Social Security."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0

15. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? transitioning to private accounts could cost $2 trillion. See above information also.


16. TO REVIEW, WHERE WOULD THAT MONEY COME FROM? our taxes will have to be increased to make Bush's proposed plan work.


17. THEY TELL US THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE OR GOING BROKE?: With all the clamoring about Social Security, a simple fact has been obscured: the Social Security budget is currently running a surplus; [e-mail]


18. OTHER COUNTRIES MUST HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MAYBE THOSE ARE BETTER? wrong: Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. A privatized system will take money from your Social Security check.


19. SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY? Nothing is going to change, in terms of benefits, for people near your retirement age.


20. WHO TAXED SOCIAL SECURITY TO BEGIN WITH? Ronald Reagan, a Republican, began the taxation on Social Security in 1983.


21. IF WE ARE GOING TO 'FIX IT' HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT TO DO AS RELATED TO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST TO 'FIX' IT? "If you compare its position now with its position at the time of the last reforms in 1977 and 1983, it's clearly better," Professor Diamond said. "Even then, it was readily fixed without radical reforms, and it's obvious that can be done again." (a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-author of the book "Saving Social Security.")





There is no Social Security crisis, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction. Social Security has provided a lifeline to millions of Americans with
millions of checks, and in more than 60 years has never missed a payment—and this track record can continue. Social Security is basically a sound system
that can meet 100 percent of its obligations for the next 39 years, and with responsible changes it can continue to do so indefinitely.

"Social Security is not a crisis for which enormous borrowing, huge benefit
cuts and risky private accounts are a solution. Rather,
it's a financial problem of manageable proportions,
solvable without new borrowing by a combination of modest
benefit cuts and tax increases that could be distributed
fairly and phased in over several decades, while
guaranteeing a basic level of inflation-proof income for
life."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0

And don't forget: It remains a fact that 30% of the votes in this national election were cast, and 80% of the votes were compiled, by three private companies, owned and controlled by conservative Republicans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/01/12_give.html



REFERENCES:




Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005:

HTtp://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41481

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950 )


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ex=1106369074&ei=1&en=81cd3e12f07545a0


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-2005Jan9.html?referrer=email

[e-mail]

[shanti]

19. excellent, my man!

you broke that down well. i am saving this.

[Just Me]

21. WOW papau!!! Kinda' proves they're not interested in "educating",...

,...the public but rather FOOLING the public into giving up benefits they would otherwise choose NOT to sacrifice.

It's called deceptive/manipulative government propaganda and it's a fraud waged against our people. I think it's treason to fool the people into giving away their right to be protected against corporate predators and abject poverty. Social and economic justice is imperative to the perpetuation of democracy.

I am printing your impactful summary, right now. Thank you for posting it!!!

[papau]

24. Now we must teach the media folks to read more than Bush/Rove PR!

:-)

[EFerrari]

32. Two things.

1. I think this could be sent to Congressional leaders and cc'd to the WH. Let's all save some time. This is cr@p and we all know it.

2. The AARP buckled to the fake Medicare improvement bill. I hope they can avoid doing that this time.

[CBHagman]

34. Yes, we need to contact Congress early and often.

Let's see. Do we contact the Government Reform and Financial Services Committees first?

By the way, I am printing out the article and planning to send it both to lawmakers and to friends/relatives. I think we need to go beyond e-mail to printed messages. It's too easy to hit the delete button.

Also, a well-prepared statement over the phone is a good idea. The White House number is 202-456-1111.

And to find your representatives/senators, look here:

www.vote-smart.org

[chomskysright]

39. AARP is against Bush's SS plan

[EFerrari]

40. Today it is. Hope they can hold their ground. n/t

[chomskysright]

38. 2 new extra points: added 1.15.05

I accumulated those 21 talking pts. thanks for passing them around.

Here are recent updates based on Bush's community (heavily scripted) meeting last week which I pulled as associated with review of the Daily Howler:


4. IS SOCIAL SECURITY GOING BUST (FOR THOSE IN THEIR 20'S NOW)": We are being told by Bush (week ending January 15, 2005) that the system is ' going bankrupt.' This is a lie. "The facts: The Social Security system cannot go "bankrupt," for it has no creditors. By law, the trustees will continue to pay reduced benefits even if the trust fund is exhausted. Payroll taxes will continue to come in and benefits will continue to be paid. According to the trustees' intermediate economic forecast (neither doom nor boom), the trust fund will be able to pay about 73 percent of scheduled benefits in 2042 and about 68 percent of scheduled benefits in 2078. http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Bush, week ending January 15, 2005, stated: "Bush: "Most younger people in America think they'll never see a dime."
The facts: Social Security says younger people will see a lot more than a dime. Their retirement benefits–even under a "flat-bust" system–will be significantly higher than today's benefits in real terms. http://www.dailyhowler.com/ For low-income Americans, currently scheduled benefits for those who retire in 2080 are $19,906 per year in 2004 dollars. If Social Security can pay only 68 percent of those benefits, that would be $13,536 per year, compared with benefits of $8,804 for low-income retirees who retired last year. For the highest earners, Social Security is currently promising $53,411 per year for those who retire in 2080 (or $36,319 per year if Social Security can pay only 68 percent). Current maximum benefits are $21,891 per year for those who retired last year.

[UpInArms]

5. another case of taxpayer funded propaganda

by this mal-administration and its minions.

:argh:

[Just Me]

13. Deceptive/manipulative propaganda at that.

It's disgusting. It's an outrage! :mad:

[rockedthevoteinMA]

6. This is such a disgrace...

And isn't it illegal?

[HootieMcBoob]

7. Just one more case of

this administration filling posts within government agencies with people who's goal is to destroy the agency their charged with overseeing. Or more succinctly putting the foxes in charge of the hen-house. The Bush administration will leave a charred hulk of a country in its wake. What a disaster they have been for us. They are absolutely without shame.

[Rose Siding]

8. Here's a tiny bit of good news

MSNBC's own Chief Economics Correspondent (maybe not for much longer!) wrote an analysis piece yesterday with some *actual* analysis:

snip>
This time around, Social Security is years away from anything that honestly could be described as a financial crisis. But that has not stopped President Bush from trying to whip up enthusiasm for his proposed personal retirement accounts by warning of an imminent disaster.
...
“In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,” Bush said.

That is just plain wrong. In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll, with the gap reaching $10 billion in 1983........
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6827519/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ is doing a really good job keeping up on this issue.

[TahitiNut]

10. It's not just "plain wrong" ... it's a blatant LIE.

Even an imbecile can plainly see it from the following graph. Benefits exceeded payments in 1959, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981. Nonetheless, surpluses (reserves) in the Trust Fund were more than adequate in virtually every instance, just like 2018! (That fucking sleazy lying bastard!)

[papau]

12. Excellent graphs - pity the folks in the media can not view the graph

and then say, Bush is a liar -

'Cause that might be biased per the GOP!

[TahitiNut]

14. Thanks. I really don't know how the data could be more available.

The Social Security Adminstration has been publising this stuff forever, even before the WWWeb. The URLs are on my graphs. If anyone can't read a graph they could just look at the tables from which they're derived.

Gawd! This just isn't rocket science!

[truthisfreedom]

11. how many tax dollars does it take to bribe a SSA official?

$240k?

[baby_bear]

15. I hope you're not referring to career professionals

Remember, Williams was not a government employee when he took the money, but the money was tendered at the political appointee level.

It's the career SSA professionals who oppose this crap coming out of their agency that have to have their voices heard, and we must not assume they are part of the problem. They need to know we support them and want to hear them. They may well need whistle-blower protection. Who will make sure they get it? It better be a Republican senator to have any clout, unfortunately. Like Grassley for the FDA scientist who spilled his guts.

b_b

[Wright Patman]

17. We suspect there are stockpiles

of government IOUs building up. The danger is increasing over time that the proceeds of thse bonds could fall into the wrong hands (those of "the people"), so we must seize them and allocate them to the major investment houses of Wall Street for safekeeping.

[Colorado Blue]

20. Two Birds With One Stone

Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/opinion/15brooks.html?th

A conservative advises us how childless women can be made happier by getting married young, producing "human capital" of which, he claims, we are running short, then she can go to school and work from 40-70.

This would solve the sad woman's problems while making more babies to work and cover the social security shortfall.

AAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

[Just Me]

22. Humans are capital. Women make excellent production machines,...

,...of human capital.

This guy is obviously a LIFE-FOR-PROFIT, ANTI-LIBERTY, kind of fellow. He's advocating a form of slavery.

[DebJ]

28. Tell the unemployed/underemployed we need more human

capital!!!

[DebJ]

23. He wants SSI employees to do a going out of business sale and

try to get rid of their own jobs so the money can go to bankers!

[Rose Siding]

25. Title of article has changed to

"Social Security Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision"

It's annoying when they do that. The subject line matched the published title when I posted it.

[wishlist]

29. In the past SSA reassured public of the security and soundness of SS

Being a field office employee for this highly efficient agency is much like being in the military as far as adherence demanded to rules and regulations and carrying out 'official' policy. Those employees who are perceived as providing the most help to the agency in promoting agency goals are rewarded with performance awards, merit pay and promotions.

For decades, employees have been expected to reassure the public of the security and soundness of the program to counteract the fear mongering about the program going broke. So the Bush agenda is a radical 180% switch in policy for this agency.

What is most frustrating is that even if all the SS employees refuse to promote privatization, the agency will still be able to sway public opinion through the use of propaganda messages on its website and in millions of brochures and computer generated notices sent to millions of people.

[Rose Siding]

30. from what I understand

when a caller to the agency is placed on hold, the recorded message warns of the dire conditions of this New Crisis

[pdxmom]

31. They need to be held accountable

They've gotten away with this propaganda 3 times already, that we know of. Now, they're going to raid the trust fund that THEY say is in crisis, to pay for their agenda. Obviously, despite the reports that doing this is a misuse of funds (and probably illegal), they don't think they need to be held responsible and can carry on with impunity.

[KalicoKitty]

33. Bush Administration again using tax-payer dollars to propagandize.

Bush will launch a $40 million TV ad blitz to convince Americans that our grandkids will be left out in the cold if Social Security is NOT privatized.

Bush has wanted to dismantle Social Security from day one. He wants to cut benefits to future retirees by changing the way the benefits are calculated.

Instead of fairly matching Social Security benefits to changing wage levels, as has been the case for the past 30 years, Bush wants to suddenly shift course and tie Social Security to an inflation index. Since inflation grows at a much slower rate than wages, this proposal would significantly cut benefits for all working Americans. And these cuts are guaranteed, whether you opt in to the Bush plan or not!

Every American worker deserves a secure retirement and that the 69-year-old Social Security program, which offers retirement and disability income to more than 47 million Americans, is under attack by a moronic dictator.

[not fooled]

35. They are sending out propaganda in SS mailers

I heard, I think on AAR last night, a retiree call in saying that included with her mailing from SS was a statement of all the * crap and lies--i.e., SS in imminent danger, going broke, etc.

So, they are using SS already to scare old people. The admin has a pipeline into the homes of SS recipients to poison their minds. Without a vigorous and truthful rebuttal, they might get away from it.

Utterly contemptible and disgusting.

[Colorado Blue]

36. Propoganda and the Misuse of Taxpayer Money

I wrote to the DNC last night asking if they have any plans to counter this disinformation campaign.

Misusing this fine agency, and the taxpayer's dollars, to create propoganda for a partisan program is SHAMEFUL. It is TERRIBLE to be scaring Social Security recipients in such a manner. Either they are old, disabled or bereaved and do NOT need these scare tactics - this is infuriating.

I wonder if it's illegal?

[Robbien]

42. The gov't is no longer our gov't, it is an arm of the GOP party

Taxpayer funded employees being used to push a GOP program which is meant to fleece each and every wage earner for the benefit of investment firm owners.

This is sickening.

[Megahurtz]

43. This administration is OUT OF CONTROL

making their own rules regardless of anyone.

THIEVES!!!:argh:

[schrodingers_cat]

44. SS reform - the new feudalism.......

we are invited to place our futures in the hands of publicly corporations (who's interest is to maintain THEIR own bottom line and feather out executive nests), and comply with every maintenance fee that Wall Street brokerage firms care to slap us upside the head with.......aren't these the same sort of tactics used by any number of groups that trade in human equity - the farm labor and illegal sex labor trades that remove your future from your control and dominate by indenturing and by keeping your security in a fluid and potentially unstable state?? What if one of 'my' companies chose to go up and bust like Enron, taking down all of it's employees? And shareholders? Imagine that scenario one thousand times squared! It would be impossible to have gov't oversight on the shenanigans of so many companies playing such games while protecting the ones at the top, all while standing on the shoulders of every American whose retirement funds lie in their accounts to play with and amass interest? This may work for those familiar with the market who have VERY HEALTHY financial bumpers stashed in other types equity, but the average Jane with that thin line between a little something and nothing at all STANDS TO BE FINANCIALLY DEVASTATED!

ARRRRRRRgggggghhhhhh

<rant over - felt good!>

[DemBones DemBones]

45. READ talkingpointsmemo.com EVERY DAY! Josh Marshall is focusing on

this extremely important issue, linking to other articles and also summarizing important points for his readers.

Guess what? If you aren't "contributing" to FICA, your employer isn't matching your contributions to FICA, as the law requires them to do.

Why wouldn't you be contributing to FICA? If Bush** gets his way and you can put money in a "private account instead," you wouldn't be contributing to FICA, or at least would contribute far less. Put less in, get less out when you retire. George doesn't care -- he's already filthy rich!

Who benefits most? I'll bet on the employers!

"And screw you all," they chortle as they blow kisses at a photo of W on their desk.