Dean Baker: the real danger to social security is coming from Democrats

[depakid]

President Obama comments on Social Security privatization in the last week sound like something that he stole from the playbook of the last Democrat in the White House. Just as President Clinton tried to tell us that the veracity of one of his statements on the Lewinski affair depended on "what your definition of 'is' is," President Obama is telling us that he will stand up against Republican plans to privatize Social Security.

That is nice to hear, but it really is beside the point. President Bush did try to privatize Social Security in 2005 and, no doubt, many Republicans would still like to do so today, but privatization is not currently on the agenda of their leadership. The immediate threat to Social Security is plans to cut benefits by either changing the benefit formula and/or raising the retirement age.

This threat comes not just from the Republican Party, but from the top levels of the Democratic Party as well. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the majority leader in the House, explicitly called for raising the retirement age to 70 in a speech earlier this summer. Erskine Bowles, the co-chairman of the deficit commission appointed by President Obama, also explicitly said that cuts to Social Security would be on the agenda of the deficit commission. Of course, former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, the Republican that President Obama appointed as the other co-chair of the commission, never misses an opportunity to say that he wants to cut Social Security.

It has become quite fashionable in elite policy circles to call for Social Security cuts like raising the retirement age. In fact, support for cutting Social Security is almost a requirement for being accepted as a serious person in places like the Washington Post opinion pages and other centers of elite opinion.

This is really bad policy. Thanks to the incompetent economic management of these same elites, the huge cohort of baby boomers at the edge of retirement will have little other than their Social Security to support them in retirement.

...The Republicans are right to attack President Obama for creating a false crusade against Social Security privatization. It's good to know that he's against it, but we don't need to know what his definition of "is" is. If he wants to defend Social Security, then he should speak up clearly against the real threats facing the program today.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/social-security-the-repub_b_691537.html

[chill_wind]

1. K & R. And from Friday (at his website):

The Washington Post, Which Is Projected to Go Bankrupt In Coming Years,
Misreports Social Security
Friday, 20 August 2010 05:30

The Washington Post, which is losing subscribers at the rate of 10 percent a year, felt the need to tell readers in a front page story that many people at a congressional campaign event: "recognized the need to fix Social Security, which is on track to go bankrupt in the coming decades without changes." Actually, the projections show that if no changes are ever made to the program it will only be able to pay 78 percent of scheduled benefits 27 years from now. The program would not go bankrupt.

As a political reality, it is close to absurd to imagine that at a time when beneficiaries are almost 50 percent larger as a share of the voting population that Social Security would be allowed to substantially reduce benefits. Congress has in the past responded quickly to shortfalls in the program and it would almost certainly take steps to ensure that close to full benefits are paid, even if nothing is done over the next 27 years and the projections prove accurate.

It also would have been useful to point out that the discussion of Social Security privatization is largely a diversion of the real issue concerning Social Security. The co-chairs of President Obama's deficit commission have both publicly suggested that they would support cuts to Social Security, such as an increase in the retirement age. Such cuts are the most immediate issue affecting the program, not privatization.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/

[Dragonfli]

2. When they are done pulling off this theft as Democrats, it will be the end of the party for decades

Not that that will stop them, many Democrats are really Republicans hiding in our party from the fascists that took over theirs.
They won't care that much that the democratic party will become a swear word to all seniors and most others that hope to stop working sometime before death.

[ooglymoogly]

24. It is gratifying to see others who "get it"

Who in fact are destroying the Democratic party... I cannot scream any louder.

[Dragonfli]

28. I know how you feel

I too have been screaming at the top of my lungs about the infiltration of the party by Republicans in (D)rag since the nineties.
They are tearing down the people's party from within and rather than sending them packing back to the party of their ideology in order to maintain Democratic principles, the party rallies around them and actively supports their infiltration and their Republican legislation for some pyrrhic victory at the polls.

The party even takes these republicans and puts them in charge of electing more Republicans in (D)rag - Emmanuel has made a career of it.
Now they are in most of the positions of power within the party because they bring corporate cash in with their fallating of multi-nationals.

Some of the worst Republican legislation has come from the Democratic side, if you want safety nets cut and the wealthy to grow more wealthy, just put a Republican in (D)rag in charge. "Free" trade, welfare "reform", an end to Glass-Steagall and now - "entitlement" cuts and a corporate FORCED monopoly on our very health and well being.

I get why you are screaming.

[pattmarty]

33. Here's something to keep in mine; Nixon would be considered a...........

...........liberal in 2010 for the majority of his domestic policies when he was President. That is a very sad thing indeed for this country today. The fucking Dems will be the ones responsible (along gladly with the Republicans) for gutting SS & Medicare. They won't have to privatize it, they will gut BOTH so all the people fucked by that will HAVE to go to the "private market" for "supplemental policies".

[The Green Manalishi]

50. Could you begin to imagine

The creation of the EPA today?
Quota based affirmative action?
Replacing Welfare with a 'Negative income tax'?
Even his "war on drugs' was more about treatment than punishment.

[ooglymoogly]

65. The fatal mistake Nixon made, was running under the pug banner.

Without in the end, Republican support.

[Desertrose]

40. I'm screaming right along with you Dragonfli!

The party even takes these republicans and puts them in charge of electing more Republicans in (D)rag...to the point its hard to recognize the D's anymore.....

[readmoreoften]

37. Wow, you hit that on the head. That's exactly what's going on. +1

The Republicans are hiding out in the Democratic Party in order to challenge the rising protofascist organizations within their own. Succinctly put.

[ooglymoogly]

48. Hmmmm, Not sure exactly what you are saying here. I did not read

in fli's post what you appear to have read. I have not seen many, if any pugs who have switched parties or pugs just running as Dems for the purpose of confronting pugs or the fascist demons in the pug party. What I see is just plain old collusion with the pugs; To water down and kill any good legislation to nothing, or reverse its meaning; To make it a boondoggle to corporations for whom pugs and Dinos are merely surrogates. And that is their deadly danger to us, passing pug legislation in (d)rag, as fli so excellently put it.

[liberation]

52. I dunno, if one looks, quacks and walks like a republican...

... so they are too chickenshit to register republican, that is about it. But the DLC for the most part is made of people who wish they could be republicans, but couldn't bring themselves to register as such. Probably due to their traditional hostility from the GOP to anyone who was not of the wealthy male WASP persuasion. It makes sense why Rahm (a Jew), Hillary and Bill (A strong woman and a non wealthy by birth southerner), and Obama (a half black man) did not want to register republican given the track record from the GOP regarding their respective groups. So they did the next big thing: bring the GOP to them.

[Dragonfli]

55. By their policy you will know them! They are there, she took it exactly as I see it. /nt

[ooglymoogly]

62. These are two entirely different things.

Pugs running as Dems for the purpose of confronting the demons in the Pug party from the safety of the welcoming arms of the DLC, is one thing; A thing of insignificance to the overall picture; A thing overwhelming evidence does not support without even considering this red herring.

The real argument

That pugs are running as dems;

One; Only incidentally because they are not batshit crazy enough to be accepted in the insane asylum of the new and "improved" Pug party; Who's litmus test defies credulity.

Two; because they can carry out pug policy under chameleon colors mimicking a Democrat; Invited, recruited and pulled on board by Rahm et al, to do just that. The crux of the whole; To force treacherous corporate legislation under signature of the Dems; Creating an illusion voters have been propagandized into believing; That Both parties are the same; All just a bunch of crooks working for corporate interests and not those of the public.

Destroying any respect left to Democrats;

But in truth;

That Pugs'nDinoes represent corporate interests, while Democrats represent those of the public they serve.

The possibility that a Pug might be pretending to be a democrat to confront the demons of their true party is incidental to the argument.

If in fact, your line of reasoning is as the poster describes it; Then you and I are arguing two entirely different points; One I consider insignificant though I might concede that, pretending to be democrats to confront the pugs's venture into lunacy may indeed be "a" reason of a few; Though even that is debatable but still irrelevant;

The other born out by the outcomes of what is, in fact, happening; The larger picture; That treacherous and blatantly Pug or Corporate legislation is being churned out under signature of Democrats; Condemning us to a future of duplicity and hypocrisy; A very bad rap that will be exploited to unending minority; Democrats in theory, did once upon a time; Act upon lofty principles and ideals that watch out for the interests of the public; Protecting it against corporate dominance. The import of the confusion of unexposed Dinos within our party is astounding; The damage is and will be kaleidoscopic.

Your first post bear's out the tack that I am on and the second supports something entirely meaningless that is not, evident in your first post when taken in its entirety.

That republicans are hiding out from their creepy lookalikes does not extrapolate to Republicans hiding out to confront or take to task their binged out twins in the pug party.

I do not see how the two are reconcilable, except perhaps, peripherally; A diversion of the argument who's conclusion can only be, that of a plus for the Democrats; Admittedly arguable points, but still a wholly peripheral issue to the monumental import of the message;

It is incidental, if true, that Pugs may be dressing as Dems to confront the insanities of the pug party; It is, however, a castration and diminution of the main argument, a hint toward harmless and meaningless, in a cloak of petulant anger.


I cannot divine whether the poster meant these things, but none the less, that is the meaning of what is written.

This is to me, far too important a subject to be weighted, confused and diverted with meaningless side issues, however debatable those might be.

[Dragonfli]

63. I am guilty of only reading the reply title, I thought the "+1" was the end of the message

I believe they are infiltrators that would have been republicans if they could or they are infiltrating to bring down the party or both.

I apologize for the confusion, I should have opened the post as there was no "nt" attached, but I was on my way out the door with a barking dog in hand and was in "scan real quick before I leave" mode.

The important thing is the very real tragedy that republican legislation is being crafted and enacted by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

IMO these infiltrators are doing more than just damaging the country like normal Republicans do, they are also destroying the reputation and viability of what was once the only "people party" this nation had. They will lose power by being republican in deed and the hard core fascists in the Repub party will grow strong and drunk with power again.

I hope I have cleared up what my concerns are and what I was trying to express in that post.
:hi:

[ooglymoogly]

64. I am in total agreement with those thoughts.

Thanx for setting the record straight

[Capitalocracy]

46. The agenda outweighs the importance of winning elections

Maybe we should take a cue from them.

[Marr]

60. I really think that's intentional.

The fatcats who fund DLCers are getting *much* better mileage for their dollar than they would by simply funding Republicans, as they not only get corporate policy, they undermine the once-populist party as well, leaving the opposition hopeless. Or maybe it's Hope©less.

Anyway, I'm sure these Bluedog/DLC types are quite happy to deflate traditional Democratic Party. They say as much, actually, if you listen to them. But they use flowery marketing-speak to describe it, of course.

[Hannah Bell]

3. kr. baker was one of the mainstream economists who was right about the real estate bubble &

most everything else.

[depakid]

5. He also had the effective policy solution to the morass of foreclosures

but the administration was more concerned with protecting the banksters than righting the economy on mainstreet.

[chill_wind]

6. Yep. Krugman thought he should have at the very least

had a seat at PERAB, but nope.

And did this Baker piece get posted recently by any chance when it came out?

If not....

Fun With Paul Ryan and the Washington Post
Friday, 13 August 2010 04:29

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/fun-with-paul-ryan-and-the-washington-post

Masterful and brutal.

[philly_bob]

23. I have a lot of respect for Baker's opinion.

Here's some background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baker

[howaboutme]

25. Yes he has credibility and foresight

To quote Wikipedia:

Basing his outlook on house-price data-sets produced by the US government and Yale economist Robert Shiller, Baker was among the first economists to assert there was a bubble in the US housing market in 2002,<7><8><9> well before its peak in late 2005<10> and one of the few economists to predict that the collapse of this bubble would lead to recession.<8><9> He has been critical of the regulatory framework of the real estate and financial industries, the use of financial instruments like CDOs, and the incompetence and conflicting interests of US politicians or regulators, such as Hank Paulson.<11>

Baker opposed the US government bailout of Wall Street banks on the basis that the only people who stood to lose from their collapse were their shareholders and well-paid CEOs. As regards any hypothetical, negative effects of not doing the bailout, he has explained that, "We know how to keep the financial system operating even as banks go into bankruptcy and receivership,"<12> citing US government action taken during the S&L crisis of the 1980s.<13> He has ridiculed the US elite for favoring it, asking, "How do you make a DC intellectual look less articulate than Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric? That's easy. You ask them how failure to pass the bailout will give us a Great Depression."<14>

[WorseBeforeBetter]

4. KICK.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tomp]

18. exactly. that's the point. nt.

[sabrina 1]

8. Dean Baker, James Galbraith, Paul Krugman and others

should be the ones on that Commission Obama set up, after saying he would not set up a Commission.

Obama's speech on SS was very disturbing to anyone who has been paying attention to this issue over the past several months.

As Baker says, the privatization issue is not where to look for the threat to SS. That will appease people especially on the left, and cause them to falsely believe everything is being taken care of.

Dean Baker hits the nail on the head as always.

K&R

[scarletwoman]

58. Indeed. Great post. nt

[scarletwoman]

9. K&R - If my soon-to-be-retirement-age cohort lets those frickin' lying con men get away with this,

then we are just plain too damn stupid to live.

Shit. This pisses me off so badly I can't even compose a coherent sentence. Those assholes have been lying and lying and ripping us off for decades. Are we really going to swallow this shit?

They've been ripping off the SS trust fund for decades, and now they're determined to do whatever it takes to keep from having to pay it back.

Gaaaah! :grr:

sw

[tomp]

19. democrats and republicans are equally responsible for the problem.

but the dems are the ones who are POSING as our friends. it is they and their horrible rightist policies we must oppose. obama is a shill for the rich, period.

[texastoast]

30. No, we are not.

Get your popcorn and watch.

[jannyk]

10. k&r. I am beyond disgust at this point.

[bluethruandthru]

11. Funny how those who are the most vocal about raising the retirement age

are people who won't actually need social security when they retire.

They also aren't bricklayers, masons, carpenters, painters, trash collectors, etc., etc.... professions where it would be nearly impossible to perform your job at 70!

[depakid]

15. Yep. The Steny Hoyers of the world

who have been in Washington making poor public policy choices for 30 years. (In Steny's case his corrupt policy choices on deregulation have caused not one, but TWO financial and housing market crashes).

Right alongside Schumer in that regard.

[howaboutme]

16. Such as politicians

many of which have been on the gravy train of corruption and self aggrandizement for most of their lives while they pat each other on the back claiming that they and their peers are worthy and gracious public servants.

Truthfully I've become "super synicalized" by these politicians who seem to say many of the right things while stabbing the constituents in the back and doing the opposite of what really needs done.

We need to start taking a fair cut out of the assets and wealth from the banksters and CEOs who have obviously pillaged the USA, and reinvest it into the greater good of the USA.

[liberation]

54. Bingo!

I am relatively young, and it pisses me to no end to hear wealthy old assholes telling me that I should be expected to work for a decade extra. And that I should be ever so happy about having to work longer, for less pay, to get no benefits in the end. Fuck that. If that is what my life is supposed to be: an spendable working bee, that can be replaced and kicked to the curve arbitrarily. I have better things to do with my time on this earth.

It is easy for them to talk about work, when they haven't put a single day of honest work themselves.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leveymg]

13. What Dean is alluding to is that Lewinsky interrupted the plunge toward privatization under Clinton

Such a massive Wall Street rip-off, ironically, can only succeed under a President that has the trust of the majority of the people.

Nothing to see here, move along citizens. Move along.

[howaboutme]

14. Don't forget - Clinton, NAFTA and GATT

were instrumental in the decline of the USA middle class and do not ever forget or make excuses for this travesty.

This is one of the best articles you will ever read on free trade and how America was snookered by both Parties. http://www.nolanchart.com/article368.html

Yes - I believe that the same Wall Street that was instrumental in getting Obama elected still has their eyeballs and hooks sharpened to get their hands on our Social Security. George Carlin was right on.....they are coming for your social security. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[scarletwoman]

17. A kick before I retire (so to speak).

[Fumesucker]

20. K&R, thanks for posting..

[dajoki]

21. K&R

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. K & R

[nashville_brook]

26. k n r

[Little Star]

27. k&r

[theophilus]

29. Please read the chapter on the Bush push to privatetize SS in Al Franken's book

Truth...with Jokes. It explains it all. It looks like the Catfood Commission is gearing up to try the same stuff again.

[Better Believe It]

31. The Democratic Party now supports "tweaks" in Social Security. "Treaks" is the code word for cuts.

That's according to Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4515602

[Greyhound]

32. K&R. Which is worse, your sworn enemy or one that pretends to be your friend

while working against you?

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. That would be Obama and he disgusts me, thoroughly!

:puke:

[Edweird]

34. K&R

[closeupready]

35. The vast majority of people in Congress and DC are multi-millionaires. Thus, SS is superfluous

for them. They will have their lifetime health insurance courtesy of the US taxpayer, and cushy, lucrative spots post-term on boards of directors. They don't give diddly squat about the average American, and this applies to most members of both parties.

[kenny blankenship]

36. Amen.

The health "care" "reform" bait and switch rip-off was all the warning you were going to get about these "Democrats". It should have been plenty. But people don't like to think they've fatally misplaced their trust - especially when they HAVE.

[blindpig]

38. We are on our own.

Better get used to it.

We are going to need a whole lot of solidarity.

[ihavenobias]

39. K & R n/t

[Vincevega]

41. Kick and rec

[Uncle Joe]

42. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, depakid.

[laughingliberal]

43. K & R nt

[ChiciB1]

44. Question? Does Anyone Have A Little Bit Of A Clue Regarding WHAT

they are looking to cut?? Will it only be raising the age, or do they actually want to cut the benefit amount that one might already be receiving?? I know that last year there wasn't a COLA for those on SS, but is this going to be permanent??

Will the percentage amount that you expect to receive be lowered? While I should have been paying attention to "his" speeches and researched this more, I've just gotten so turned off by "pretty little speeches" by him. I'm sure it's not what a Democrat should do when the President is a Democrat, but I simply can't watch Obama when he's speaking more of his "pretty words" these days. Just turn it off, and many, many times turn off the news and go elsewhere too!

Cynicism makes you do things like this, and my cynicism grows daily! I have 2 tattoos on my outer ankles, one of a squirrel and one of a chocolate lab, but have been thinking of getting one that says "cynic!" Haven't decided where to have it put yet, but perhaps across the top of my LEFT foot!

NEVER would have thought I would be thinking about something like this, but I'm truly fed up! When the ground floor of this country starts to crumble, and the cogs start coming off the wheels... MAYBE then it will ring a few bells. I'm NOT holding my breath though! Unfortunately, I'm not the only one in my circle of friends and family who feel the same way!!

MY COUNTRY... Right or Wrong... Yeah Baby!!

[Capitalocracy]

47. Policy is more important than speeches anyway nt

[bc3000]

45. This is why there are no moderate republicans... that ground is held by democrats.

[Vincevega]

49. To quot the Great Cenk

"Sometimes I get discouraged"

[NorthCarolina]

53. Can we finally admit we're officially sick and tired of the DLC New Dems and their

GOP cohorts yet? If a candidate is not a certifiable Liberal/Progressive and/or not completely unaffiliated with the DLC, they will get no vote from me.

[scarletwoman]

56. Kick!

[leftstreet]

57. Kick

Thanks for posting this

[natrlron]

59. I disagree - SS must be adjusted to be saved

Raising the retirement age or making some other changes won't kill SS. What will kill SS is if the Dems don't have to political courage to do something. SS was designed for a very different world ... for starters, the ratio of wage earners to retirees as well as expected length of life. The system cannot remain economically viable without making some basic changes that take the changed situation into account.

[scarletwoman]

61. I see you've bought the Owner Class propaganda -- LIES -- about SS, lock stock and barrel.

Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. The fact is, the DC fatcats STOLE the money we've paying into it and they don't want to pay it back.

The FICA taxes were raised in 1983 for precisely the purpose of covering Baby Boom retirees. Now they want to renege on the deal.

"Fixing" Social Security is a con job, quit believing the lying conmen and start fighting them.

[Dragonfli]

66. We have years yet in which to raise the cap up to 150 k or so, problem solved

No great rush is needed either, they just don't want to honor what was borrowed from this SEPERATE account because they want to use OUR money to maintain a low corporate and wealthy citizen tax environment.

Please educate yourself on the issue, there are many facts easy to find with a simple search of this site.