Social Security, the New Deal program that has provided a basic level of economic support for the nation’s elderly, disabled and orphaned for 70 years, is in grave danger—not from Baby Boomers’ rising demands, but from a campaign of lies and fear-mongering, led by the president. The truth? There is no Social Security crisis. None whatsoever. Yet, in his State… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (42)Page 1 of 1 pagesI posted this previously in another thread----
Here’s a copy of the letter I composed which I emailed to my Congressman and state Senators:Dear Congressman .......,
As a concerned citizen residing in the .....district, I am worried that
Washington is intent on compromising Social Security. Looking at the way in
which the present administration has concealed $400 billion overcosts for
their Medicare overhaul, how can we trust them to overhaul another system
upon which Americans depend?Please do not allow our Social Security institution to fall victim to a
fiscal fiasco like our National debt. We cannot afford to let our enormous
deficit to continue to grow.Respectfully/Sincerely,
..........Just an idea if anyone else is concerned about the fate of Social Security. Now my “representatives” are in George’s pocket, so my effort is probably falling on deaf ears, but if enough people express concern we may be heard. I think this is a critical issue.
Info to Contact your Senator:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senat tors_cfm.cfmTo contact your memeber of the 109th Congress:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Happy President’s Day! (followed by Nelson’s voice---of the Simpsons---- haa ha)
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 21, 2005 at 9:49 AM During a time period where we are running up deficits in the 1/2 trillion per year neighborhood mostly due to ill-advised tax cuts for the rich, Bush has the audacity to make his top priority “fixing” a program that, by the most conservative estimates, will be fully funded for 37 more years. Are you fucking kidding me?
I suppose that if Bush were a doctor he’d tell me to put off treatment for my cancer so that I could save up my money in case I get Alzheimer’s in 40 years.
Posted by Matt Harris on Feb 21, 2005 at 10:03 AM All of George W. Bush’s actions can always be explained by his own words coming from his very own mouth as shown in Moore’s F-9/11-in his speech to the ultra rich:"Some call you the have’s and have-more’s. I call you my base”. In every action(ignore his promises to gain votes)he has remained true to his pledge to screw every American who is not very wealthy. He is a man of priciples. When the choice is between “What would Christ do?” and the money, he always chooses the money...Amen
Posted by Mark Cartwright on Feb 21, 2005 at 11:40 PM Thank s for the info, Pick. I keep forgetting where to go to protest this horror..........
Since I am a Boomer, 55 and disabled, (not to mention, GAY)the Bush Axe Plan really scares the crap out of me!
What the Bushies don’t realize is that many of us who took to the streets in the ‘60’s have NEVER stopped paying attention to what these pigs are doing.
When I count up the # of years the Dem’s have been in the white house since Nixon, I find the total of 12 years!(Carter and Clinton) This is what has put us, USA, in this horrible political/social bind. The right has been chipping away at our freedoms, the environment and the poor ever since Nixon. He wasn’t really so bad, believe it or not. After Nixon’s impeachment, the right figured out how to take the power away from the people and got busy doing it. They realized that the “cushy” fifites created a generation of folks with time on our hands; time to go to college, listen, learn and protest.
Since then, they systematically destroyed the economy so people didn’t have time to think past their next meal. While preaching “Family Values”, they crushed the families. Then, blamed women who had to work to support their families for everything that happened because Mommy wasn’t home.
I still wonder how these “smart guys” think they are going to pay for their programs as they decimate the middle-class with their “fiscal programs”? The rich won’t pay and the poor can’t. Where’s it going to come from? Hmmmmmm?
Posted by Southvalley on Feb 22, 2005 at 8:06 AM HUBRIS:
Arrogance caused by too great pride.
Common among Texas oil men.
And current White House occupant.
Posted by Nate Bushnell on Feb 22, 2005 at 2:43 PM “Some call you the power elite. I call you “my base”…the haves…and the have-mores”.
When that mindless, simpleton that we call the President made that statement, he made it at a time when he didn’t understand that EVERY word uttered by the President in public is document, and on the record.
And he made that statement at one of those “$3000 a plate” capitalist pigfest fundraisers, that the average American can’t even DREAM of attending. He made it from a dais that included Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, Jack Welch (GE Chairman), and other members of the power elite.
He said it with all sincerity. And I need look NO FURTHER than that statement to understand just WHO and WHAT George Bush IS.
These people have been rewarded with all the benefits afforded to free men by this great country.
Yet...HE and THEY would deny the average working person, the people on whose backs THESE elitists build and prosper, a continuation of a system that affords nothing more than a guarantee that when they reach the end of the road that they can retire with their dignity and honor intact.
Social Security is in trouble? Fine. How about a business picking up the tab. The American people signed off on HUGE tax breaks for corporations and the elites with the promise that it would be used for “investment” and lead to more jobs and growth in the economy. Well, corporations have taken that money and used it to invest in jobs...OVERSEAS. They have turned their backs on the American People in the name of the “free market”.
Why is it a crime to expect them to “give something back” in the BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY and its PEOPLE?
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 22, 2005 at 2:52 PM sorry, correction
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 22, 2005 at 3:07 PM Quote
“In a few years, we can expect to see an unprecedentedly large senior lobby that knows how to organize, and how to take it to the streets and fight hard when its own interests are at stake.”
As much as I am wishing that a few Bob Dylan records can turn someone into an activist, I like to remind myself this is the very same generation that run the executive boards of today’s corporations, or at least invest in the aforementionned and expect large dividends and high performance, regardless of the damage.
Yes, the Boomer generation (and forgive me for generalising) can be fiesty when its own interests are stake, but I still think they’ll be a lot more happy to grab the immediate little breadcrumb payoff that comes from Bush’s proposed reform, rather than get all deep and think of the long term concesquence for a change.
Posted by Citizenalex on Feb 22, 2005 at 6:53 PM Because the children of the ‘60s...the so called “anti establishment” group, have turned into the biggest sellouts, the biggest single group of narcissistic babies in the history of the country.
They are so afraid of their own shadows, so afraid of rocking the boat, so afraid of ANYTHING imposing on their safe little coccoons that they lock their children up behind gates, only let them out to “play” in tightly controlled “organized” sports, lock themselves up behind their own locked doors to sit in front of the mind control devices and simply consume, consume, consume in some twisted “hamster in a wheel” pursuit of some perfect life that NEVER existed.
No WONDER they loved Reagan and Bush. To “leaders” that lived and live in a dreamworld.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 23, 2005 at 6:00 AM I am very much interested in US politics, policies and actions. I am neither Democrat or Republican although I have generally been more supportive of the Democrats because I tend to believe, notwithstanding the last election which was highjacked by the scaremongering of the Republican party, that year-in and year-out they best represent an open, caring, concerned and commonsense electorate.
You may wonder why I should want to get involved. My concern is how your policies and actions will impact my country (Canada). So I have chosen to debate issues, when and where I can, with Americans and present a view from the outside looking in. This article was very informative, however, I did not see any sources cited other than the Congressional Budget Office. Nothing undermines one’s credibility more in these times than inaccurate information, because if you use it everything you else have to say is tainted. Accordingly, I would like to know if the CBO is the source for all of the other data provided and, if not, who they are?
Posted by Terry Johnson on Feb 23, 2005 at 11:25 AM Terry--
My e-mail is screwed up right now so I can’t send the link, but go to oldamericancentury.org for all kinds of articles that may interest you on American politics from the non-conservative viewpoint.
Posted by Margaret on Feb 23, 2005 at 2:01 PM Social Security is being attacked big time and I am afraid that Bush will win another victory. Did any readers out there hear about the Swift-Boat backers smear attack on the AARP?
Posted by jazzfan on Feb 23, 2005 at 2:06 PM bush would not be able to even consider his SS “reforms” in public if he didn’t already have a significant portion of the boom gerneration believing his lies. Remember, many of them did vote for him, so he’s got some fools support on this. Scary situation to say the least.
Posted by theloneous on Feb 23, 2005 at 2:52 PM from Media Matters website:
Novak called Swift Vets’ ads “honest” and “exactly correct”
Syndicated columnist and CNN host Robert D. Novak found yet another opportunity to heap praise on the discredited anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now called Swift Vets and POWs for Truth): a February 20 New York Times report that conservative lobbying organization USA Next has hired consultants who previously worked with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to “orchestrate attacks” on one of the chief opponents of President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security, AARP.On the February 21 edition of CNN’s Crossfire, Novak announced: “USA Next has hired the same consultant who mobilized the brilliantly effective and honest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.” Novak also referred to the group’s ads as “exactly correct” and called the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Regnery, August 2004), by Jerome R. Corsi and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth co-founder John E. O’Neill, “accurate” and “meticulously researched.”
But official Navy records and other evidence refute the discredited group’s accusations, as Media Matters for America repeatedly documented (see here and here for examples), and the Navy’s chief investigator concluded that all of the decorations Kerry received for his service in Vietnam were “properly approved.”
Novak’s praise of the group continues, despite his multiple conflicts of interest (which Media Matters has previously noted here and here) in writing and speaking about Unfit for Command. His son, Alex Novak, is director of marketing for the book’s publisher, Regnery Publishing, Inc.; in addition, Robert Novak is a trustee of the conservative Phillips Foundation, along with Thomas L. Phillips and Alfred S. Regnery. Phillips is chairman of Eagle Publishing, Inc., of which Regnery is a subsidiary. Alfred Regnery is a director of Eagle Publishing and, according to Eagle’s website, is “president of Regnery Publishing, Inc.” Eagle publishes the Evans-Novak Political Report, which Robert Novak edits.
Novak disclosed that his son works for Regnery in his September 6, 2004, syndicated column, but also noted: “I plan to continue to pursue this story as developments warrant.” Novak has made no such disclosure in his TV appearances.
— N.C.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230005
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 23, 2005 at 5:31 PM the source link has live links in the story which didn’t come through on my cut and paste.
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 23, 2005 at 5:34 PM The information being posted is here is like preaching to the choir. It needs to be told in the mainstream media!
Thanks for your research.
Posted by Lynn on Feb 24, 2005 at 2:06 PM to “lib and proud” thanks and i agree - one thing ive never heard in like 1000’s of articles ive read, and never will, b/c they are in power and why would they write about themselves as lazy and scared?
my comment:
exactly what gov is for (besides law and order) -to be a buffer to big business and look after us litttle guys. but all these appointees from Bush II are from big business. so what the F&*^?
now go back to top.
to Lynn, I know im preaching to choir, but at least here, i can get this s)*^ off my chest and read similar comments so i know im not going nuts completely (which i would think i would by watching anything but the Daily Show.)
Posted by tw on Feb 25, 2005 at 12:26 AM tw-
I agree, sometimes you feel like you must be going nuts because what’s happening right now in America is so surreal. That’s why I read and post on several sites of this type, because I need the assurance that my husband and I (and a small circle of friends) are sane and interpreting the evidence correctly.
It’s so bad in the general public that when my husband and I joined Weight Watchers our group leader began the session with anti-Democrat jokes,and pointed out how brilliant Bush is! I mean, is that the appropriate place for that?! We never returned and went to a different meeting instead. Hubris (this adiministration’s) is the really the operative word at the moment.
I am a card-carrying Democrat who contributes to the DNC, I belong to a peace organization in my area, but what I am really looking for is a leader. Democrats really need someone to lead us as a group movement, to establish momentum. We’ll have to see what Dean can do, but a very liberal platform is not going to cut it for 2008. I keep looking toward Obama in 2012. One can hope.
Posted by Margaret on Feb 25, 2005 at 11:00 AM I haven’t blogged before, and accordingly lost my first, erudite, lengthy message. Let me just keep this one short & to the point.
Rise up, people, and speak to prevent the privatization and destruction of the Social Security system, or be ye ever silent in your future misery. And that’s no scare tactic.
Instead of capitulating to lies and fearmongering, try strengthening your voice and insisting that the existing Social Security system not be privatized and destroyed. Write & call your Congress Reps., write to the newspapers, write to the t.v. stations. And talk to people - especially to those 35 years & younger (I’m 43. Child of a Depression era woman who was widowed when I was 5. Social Security checks helped). Some of the 35 & younger crowd are cowed & manipulated by Bush’s tactics, don’t know what the Depression was or the definition of an almshouse, and don’t understand that if Social Security is allowed to continue, without destruction by privatization, younger workers need not fear an insecure retirement. This administration’s addled initiative to K-O the Social Security system through a
euphemistic “ownership society” will increase the deficit by trillions, reduce the ability to pay benefits, and push seniors into poverty through a combination of volatile private accounts, and severly reduced or completely abolished guaranteed benefits. We must speak up loud & clear & repeatedly - now. President Bush has literally bought - or tried to buy - the silence of A.A.R.P. and the 55 plus age group, so it is up to you to use your voice to save Social Security.
Posted by mc on Feb 25, 2005 at 2:14 PM I am one of the elderly that lives on Social
Security plus a small retirement amount. If I
didn’t have my Social Security my children would
have to help support me. But they have children
to raise and themselves to support. We have all
paid in as much as we were required to pay. Why
shouldn’t others pay in according to their income.Then perhaps we wouldn’t have to worry
about the Fund running out of money. Take the cap
off the amount the wealthy have to put in the Fund.
Posted by helen Soiref on Feb 25, 2005 at 10:15 PM Perhaps not politically correct, but surely the massive waves of illegals who ARE tapping our entitlement systems and who WILL eventually be eligible for social security benefits does not help us at this time. Surely, when one considers that we have added 40-52 million new people to this countrys population in the past decade, that the DEMANDS on schools, health care system and entitlements will grow. We need to address this issue now.
Posted by chet polwin on Feb 26, 2005 at 1:29 PM As a 26 year old male, Iraq war vet (former reservist) and a Securities Broker many are surprised when I tell them I am strongly opposed to the privatization of Social Security. I have noticed the rampid corruption within the business and the exhorborant fees imposed onto clients accounts in recent years levied by the large clearing companies and annuity companies. Not even to mention that the overall market is so unjustly tipped in the favor of large instiutions, banks, brokerages and insurance companies. It’s true that it has always been a greedy business but the crooks have no oversight as all the regulatory agencies are filled with Bush Administration apointees. There is no question that large Wall Street firms will have a large windfall if this scheme is passed through, hence the comments by Charles Schwab that he thinks it’s “a good idea”. Wow what a surprise there. If the average worker is able to put away 4% of a $40000 salary, that $1600 a year. How much of that will go to brokers fees, clearinghouse fees, statement charges, custodial fees, annuity startup fees and god only knows what else. Well just remember the sharks in the market will be sure to take their cut too. Just keep pressuring voulnerable Republican senators in your district. Especially in swing & blue states.
Posted by Peter on Feb 26, 2005 at 5:19 PM Can someone tell me how the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have any credibility when they’ve announced a $16M campaign to bring the SS issue to Bush? What are they basing their claims of “endorsement of gay marriage” within the AARP on?
Posted by Margaret on Feb 27, 2005 at 5:36 PM Liberal AND Proud hit the nail on the head upthread, and Peter’s post just above helps reinforce the point: to look for any kind of transformative political energy from the Baby Boomers at large is a waste of time, and I say that as one who was born at the tail-end of that boom (1961). Too comfortable, too idealistic (in a “let’s make our own reality” sense), and mostly too diverse in their goals and understandings. It’s the young adults who are taking the stage right now who have the greatest chance, if any, to interfere with the neocon agenda, whether it’s SocSec or whatever. The problems in relying upon them? Years of substandard public schooling, a cultural emphasis upon entertainment over intelligence, and the utter failure of the current adult generation to help their kids build a sense of connectedness with their countrymen and the world. There’s hope, though, in the fact that there are more and more young adults expressing feelings of disillusionment with the simplistic, post-9/11 worldview of Bush and his PNAC sponsors. Falsely justified war, erosion of Constitutional protections, willingness to play fast-and-loose with the truth; the Bush administration has enough BS-baggage to bring out the cynicism in anyone, not least those in their early 20s, so broadcasting the idea (actually, the DATA) that today’s young ones will be tomorrow’s aged paupers will find an audience.
But the neocons have their eyes on this group too, and (I grudgingly admit) they’re damn good at motivating popular emotion with hot-button social issues. They’re good with passion, and we’d better be as well. The generation of aging hippies and corporate CEOs will never rescue SocSec, but the kids who’ll be left high and dry 50 years hence, after a lifetime of minimum wage work, perhaps they’ll have the impetus to get off their asses and halt the wholesale dismantling of one of the few big-ticket government programs that actually benefits more than it costs. Perhaps.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 28, 2005 at 12:05 AM This was posted in another forum:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/politics/27cong.html
Excerpts below:
After a bruising weeklong recess, Congressional Republicans will return to work on Monday chastened by public skepticism over President Bush’s plan for private accounts in Social Security. One leading Republican, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, acknowledged that the opposition was better organized while another, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said bipartisan compromise was unlikely unless the president can change the public mood.
The story was much the same throughout the country, as Republicans - some already skittish over Mr. Bush’s plan - spent the week trying to assuage nervous constituents. Instead of building support for Mr. Bush’s proposal to allow younger workers to divert payroll taxes into private retirement accounts, some of the events turned into fractious gripe sessions and others did not go nearly as well as their hosts had hoped. Mr. Santorum complained that he was dogged all week by opponents of the White House plan who dominated news coverage. Mr. Santorum, who is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership and chairman of the subcommittee on Social Security, was heckled by college students - the very audience the Bush administration was counting on - and peppered with questions from retirees.
“Clearly the other side is better organized,” Mr. Santorum said. “They got people to all these events. They had seniors lined up to ask questions, they had staff people running up passing them notes.”
AARP, the powerful retirees’ organization that opposes private accounts financed by payroll taxes, has been tracking the meetings, and offered a different assessment.
“We’ve yet to find one where there was an enthusiastic reception,” said John Rother, the group’s policy director. “The most positive reception people are getting is lots of questions, and there’s significant skepticism. This is proving to be a tough sell, and our polling suggests that the more people know, the harder the sell.”
Democrats, many of whom held their own constituent meetings, were practically giddy at the Republicans’ dilemma.
Democrats have insisted that they will be united in their opposition to the Bush plan, and on Friday, Senator Jon Corzine, the New Jersey Democrat who is running for governor of that state, said he expected that feeling to intensify.
“It is clearly something that seniors are rejecting in very, very large numbers,” Mr. Corzine said, “and increasingly it feels to me that even folks moving down the age spectrum are turning against it.”
by Sue - Sunday February 27, 2005 02:47:07 AM EST
see http://mediamatters.org/
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 28, 2005 at 8:46 AM http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4831383,00.html
Results From AP Poll on Retirement
Monday February 28, 2005 3:16 PM
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on attitudes about retirement and Social Security is based on telephone interviews with 1,000 adults from all states except Alaska and Hawaii. The interviews were conducted Feb. 22-24 by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
Results were weighted to represent the population by demographic factors such as age, sex, region and education.
No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than 3 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all Americans were polled.
There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions.
1. Do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling Social Security?
-Strongly approve, 19 percent
-Somewhat approve, 9 percent
-Lean toward approval, 11 percent
-Still have mixed feelings, 5 percent
-Lean toward disapproval, 15 percent
-Somewhat disapprove, 7 percent
-Strongly disapprove, 34 percent
---
-Total approve, 39 percent
-Total disapprove, 56 percent
2. Who do you trust more to handle Social Security?
-Democrats, 43 percent
-Republicans, 37 percent
-Neither, 16 percent
-Not sure, 4 percent
3. Are you employed?
Total employed, 66 percent
-Full-time, 57 percent
-Part-time, 9 percent
Not employed, 12 percent
Retired, 22 percent
(QUESTIONS 4-7 ASKED ONLY OF THOSE WHO SAY THEY ARE NOT RETIRED)
4. Looking ahead to your retirement, how confident are you that you will have financial resources to live comfortably during your retirement?
-Very confident, 29 percent
-Somewhat confident, 36 percent
-Not too confident, 19 percent
-Not at all confident, 15 percent
-Not sure, 1 percent
5. How good a job are you doing of preparing financially for your retirement? Would you say you are doing an excellent job, a good job, a fair job or a poor job?
-Excellent job, 19 percent
-Good job, 37 percent
-Fair job, 29 percent
-Poor job, 15 percent
6. At what age do you expect to retire?
-50 or younger, 10 percent
-51-55, 9 percent
-56-60, 19 percent
-61-65, 35 percent
-66-70, 13 percent
-71 or older, 4 percent
-Never plan to retire, 6 percent
-Not sure, 4 percent
7. Do you think you will do any work for pay after you retire, or not? If yes, ask: Which one of the following best describes why you are planning to work after you retire?
Yes, will work for pay after retiring, 63 percent
-To stay busy, 31 percent
-To earn enough money to make ends meet, 15 percent
-To have enough money for extras, 11 percent
-To try a new career, 2 percent
-Some other reason, 4 percent
No, will not work for pay after retiring, 34 percent
Not sure, 3 percent
8. Do you personally have any of the following types of retirement accounts?
-A workplace retirement plan like a 401(k), 403(b) or 457 plan: Yes, 49 percent; No, 49 percent; Not sure, 2 percent.
-An individual retirement account: Yes, 43 percent; No, 56 percent; Not sure, 1 percent.
-An employer-paid pension plan: Yes, 40 percent; No, 60 percent
(ASK HALF THE RESPONDENTS)
9a. President Bush has proposed that workers who are currently under age 55 should be given the option of investing a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market and in bonds, while at the same time reducing the guaranteed Social Security benefit they get when they retire. Depending on what happens to those investments in stocks and bonds, their Social Security benefit could be higher or lower. Do you support or oppose this proposal?
-Support, 39 percent
-Oppose, 55 percent
-Not sure, 6 percent
(ASK OTHER HALF OF RESPONDENTS)
9b. Some people have proposed that workers who are currently under age 55 should be given the option of investing a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market and in bonds, while at the same time reducing the guaranteed Social Security benefit they get when they retire. Depending on what happens to those investments in stocks and bonds, their Social Security benefit could be higher or lower. Do you support or oppose this proposal?
-Support, 45 percent
-Oppose, 51 percent
-Not sure, 4 percent
(con’t, next post)
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 28, 2005 at 9:33 AM (ASK HALF OF RESPONDENTS)
10a. If you personally were allowed to invest part of your Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, do you expect that you would receive more money in retirement, about the same amount of money, or less money in retirement than if the government were managing all of your Social Security taxes?
-More money, 39 percent
-Less money, 34 percent
-About the same amount of money, 22 percent
-Not sure, 5 percent
10b. If Americans were allowed to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, do you expect that most Americans would receive more money in retirement, about the same amount of money, or less money in retirement than if the government were managing all of their Social Security taxes?
-More money, 35 percent
-Less money, 41 percent
-About the same amount of money, 18 percent
-Not sure, 6 percent
11. Please tell me if you would support or oppose each of the following measures as ways of helping to solve the financial problems facing the Social Security program.
-Requiring those earning more than $90,000 per year to pay Social Security taxes on all of their earnings: Support, 74 percent; Oppose, 24 percent; Not sure, 2 percent.
-Increasing the retirement age for all workers: Support, 32 percent; Oppose, 66 percent; Not sure, 2 percent
-Increasing payroll taxes on all workers: Support, 30 percent; Oppose, 68 percent; 2 percent
-Cutting retirement benefits for future retirees: Support, 11 percent; Oppose, 87 percent; 2 percent
-Cutting retirement benefits for current retirees: Support, 7 percent; Oppose, 93 percent.
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 28, 2005 at 9:34 AM Read the information and responses! Strange that I see the same talking points as on a Dem blog. If the current administration said the sun was going to rise tomorrow morning, you guys would find a reason to disagree. Nothing but negative. Never any answers just negativity as usual. Dems should change their name to the HAF party, Hate America First! Your moto could be “No blow to low and No Lie to High. Seems we heard there was a problem with social security under the previous adminstration. You have no integrity and AARP will not receive my membership money again. Goodbye is too good a word, so I’ll just say fare thee well!
Posted by C. Ezell on Feb 28, 2005 at 11:05 AM We’d like to remark that in actality there were far fewer of us boomers actively involved in peace and social justice movements of the sixties and seventies than is suggested by the myth of our “radical generation.” We believe the percentage of progressive activists in any generation to be rather constant, perhaps no more than 3 - 5 per cent. Of course, the boomer generation is historically very large in real numbers has increased the impact activists have had and may have yet on society. But as observed by several here, most of us are typically American “mainstreamers” (with al the terms negative attributes). This said, we believe (perhaps cynically) that the stronger of Mr. Lindorff’s arguments for a positive progressive outcome against Republican-lead retrenchment is that one which asserts that few, probably very few, of our children and grandchildren are or will be either willing or able to support us as we are withdrawn by circumstance from the productive sector.
Still there remains the hope that the simple brute fact of our numbers may indeed force the system to reform itself and provide everyone a decent life with a living wage, single-payer health care, etc. -fieldhughes
Posted by FieldHughes on Feb 28, 2005 at 11:15 AM Wow, C. Ezell, “fare thee well” that really hurts. I do admit I’ve become fairly negative when it comes to the current Administration. Though your sun rising example is a bit over the top, here are a few instances where Bush and his cronies tell me something and I disagree:
-Iraq has WMD.
-Iraq had ties to 9/11.
-Our soldiers will be greeted with flowers.
-The war should only cost American taxpayers $1.7 billion.
-The reason humvees aren’t equipped with armor is that the contractor can’t provide it.
-The cost of the Medicare bill will be $400 billion.
-Social Security will go bankrupt in 2018.
-There were no advance intelligence that Al Quaida would use airplanes in a terrorist attack.
-The tax cuts will mainly benefit the middle class.
-We are against torture.
-We will uphold the Constitution.So excuse me for my negativity. Excuse me for not believing a word that comes out of the lying president’s mouth and his propoganda machine. And if you don’t want to read honest discussion about Social Security I suggest that you spend your time watching the president’s scripted forums with his pre-screened participants. That should give you your preferred reality.
Good Riddance, Matt
Posted by Matt Harris on Feb 28, 2005 at 2:03 PM Though I doubt that C. Ezell will return, I think that the comment about “Hate America First” is sadly hilarious. The bottom line is, those who would allow the corporate and military takeover of our country through lies, intimidation and manipulation are the true “haters” of America. Those who would seek to preserve and refine America’s dignity are the true patriots.
So I hope you enjoy your membership in the “HAF” club, C. Ezelle, but we on this site love this country enough to stick our necks out even when it’s unpopular with those who choose to remain willfully ignorant or what is NOT being reported on the evening news.
Posted by Margaret on Feb 28, 2005 at 2:19 PM if the gov. would put back the money they borrowed from ss it would be safe for a hundred years. Where do you think they are getting the money from to pay for this war, 1 billion a week they are paying and it might go on for a number of years more.
Posted by brian on Feb 28, 2005 at 7:09 PM “Hate America”, gzus! Ya try to contribute to half-way intelligent dialogue and you’re a “hater of America”. F’n typical. Like I can’t take the president to task when I think he’s off-base… THAT’S what’s “American”, being ready to critically evaluate the authority rather than mindlessly fall in line. Just cannot STAND that it’s so damn unfashionable these days!
“Hate America”, that’s f’n offensive!
Posted by Kuya on Mar 1, 2005 at 12:03 AM from a comment here :http://mediamatters.org/comments/latest/200503010001
“ I just read an article in the Washington Post regarding the creation of a new communications team within the Treasury department to monitor and promote Social Security Reform. Typically do tax dollars fund monitoring and manipulating public perception and lawmaker comments on legislation that has not even been proposed by the Executive Branch or is this another new initiative of the Bush administration. Please see excerpt from the Tuesday March 1, 2005 edition of the Washington Post Titles For GOP Urgency on Social Security White House Plans six week push.
The Treasury Department yesterday announced the formation of a Social Security “war room” and the hiring of three full-time employees to help coordinate and refine the administration’s message on the issue. The war room, which the administration is calling the Social Security Information Center, will track lawmakers’ remarks to their local news outlets, to help the White House detect signs of Republican concern or Democratic compromise. The office, modeled after the Coalition Information Centers that promoted the administration message around the world during the war in Afghanistan, will also help target speaking trips by top administration officials. Party officials said that with Republican lawmakers getting at best a mixed response to the idea in meetings with constituents last week over the Presidents’ Day break, the White House believes it is important for lawmakers to hold hearings and conduct high-profile bipartisan meetings that will help build momentum for the plan that has proved so elusive thus far. The stepped-up activities will fall far short of introduction of a detailed plan or bill, since Bush has remained vague about his plan and neither House nor Senate leaders are anywhere near agreeing on a direction. White House communications director Nicolle Devenish said that the administration is making “great progress” on the issue and that the president has always said people need to understand the problem first. “Members of both parties have started to acknowledge the nature of the problems facing Social Security, but we’ve always maintained there’s more work to be done in educating the public,” Devenish said. “We’ll stay focused on making sure that people understand the challenges facing the system before we move on to discussing possible solutions.” Officials said the information center was planned before Bush’s State of the Union address on Feb. 2 and has nothing to do with the reception his plan is receiving from rank-and-file Republican lawmakers. The officials said meetings about the center have been going on for at least two months. Rob Nichols, the Treasury Department’s chief spokesman, said three communicators have been hired for the center and that officials “plan to hire others.” “The president has made it clear that fixing Social Security is his top priority, and this office reflects that commitment,” Nichols said. The center is to be headed by Mark Pfeifle, an administration veteran who has been a spokesman for the Interior Department and last summer’s Republican National Convention. Working with him will be Shannon Burkhart and Jill Willis, both of whom worked on the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. The three were hired about two weeks ago. Also yesterday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) issued a report showing changes made to government publications about Social Security that he said were designed to promote Bush’s spin. “
by layman26 - Tuesday March 1, 2005 01:17:34 PM EST
I tried to find this info in the Washington Post online, but the website isn’t working right now.
Bush is just determined to steamroll this wrongheaded agenda.
Posted by pick of the litter on Mar 1, 2005 at 12:31 PM Guest Commentary in “BusinessWeek” magazine 03-07-05 p.39-40
“Private Accounts: Right Idea, Wrong Time ---Why a longtime advocate isn’t backing Bush’s plan”
by Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan Administration“ A privatization scheme launched early in President Ronald Reagan’s first term would have had a
20-year financial market boom to underwrite the shift. The 1980s and 1990s were also periods of strong
employment growth, which would have helped generate the payroll revenues needed to fund the transition.
The U.S. had not amassed the massive trade deficits that now undermine its capacity to issue trillions
of dollars in new debt, and it had not launched a costly war in the Middle East.”“Strike One against Bush’s plan is the inability of the weakening dollar to carry the debt burden required
to finance the transition to privatization. Foreigners are drowning in dollars. With the U.S. economy
in relative decline, they have no appetite for additional trillions of dollars. The greenback has weakened
so much that it’s on the verge of losing status as a reserve currency.”“Strike Two is the lack of domestic savings that would fund this shift. The U.S. personal savings rate is
practically nonexistent, and the government budget is awash in red ink. Offshore production, job
outsourcing, and the proliferation of H-1b and L-1 work visas for foreign professionals have
brought a halt to the growth in the high-value-added, high-productivity jobs that permits
household saving.”Of course, I believe that Bush’s terrible financial track record (and history of public misinformation) is enough reason to veto any proposal he makes to change Social Security.
Posted by pick of the litter on Mar 1, 2005 at 1:07 PM Media Matters is doing a great job to expose repeated episodes of misinformation concerning Social Security perpetuated by conservative media.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503020006
“ USA Next is a Republican front group, but you wouldn’t know it from watching the news
Charles W. Jarvis, president and CEO of the right-wing lobbying organization USA Next, has been ubiquitous on TV news in recent days attacking the AARP and lobbying for President Bush’s plan to partially privatize Social Security. These appearances have generally left the impression that USA Next is a grassroots, issue-based advocacy organization representing seniors. In fact, USA Next is something quite different: a Republican front group. Since its founding in 1991, the only common thread discernable in the group’s diverse lobbying activities is aggressive, unconditional support for the Republican Party. The group has supported Republicans and attacked Democrats on issues as varied and seemingly distant from traditional seniors’ issues as conservative judicial nominees, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and abortion. Moreover, much of the group’s funding comes from pharmaceutical companies, not individual seniors.ABC’s World News Tonight reported on USA Next’s attacks against the AARP on February 28. While the report noted that the group had recently hired media consultants who orchestrated the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry, it did not mention that this is only the most recent event in the group’s history of pro-Republican activism.
Such history was also unaddressed during Jarvis’s February 25 appearance on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight; his February 23 appearances on CNN’s Inside Politics and MSNBC’s Hardball; and appearances on Fox News by Jarvis and USA Next national chairman Art Linkletter on February 7, 16, 17, 18, and 28. CNN identified USA Next as a “conservative lobbying group,” and MSNBC introduced it as “a lobbying group that supports President Bush’s Social Security plan,” but Fox News, which has featured several interviews with representatives of the group, has consistently failed to identify USA Next as conservative, let alone partisan.
USA Next’s recently launched $10 million advertising campaign against AARP follows the group’s $4 million ad campaign in support of the Bush administration’s prescription drug bill in 2002 and its $2 million ad campaign in support of President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 under its former name, the United Seniors Association (USA).
Beyond Social Security, USA Next has supported a range of initiatives with no apparent connection to seniors and little connection to one another beyond their place on a list of GOP priorities. Press releases on a wide range of other policy issues chronicle the group’s support for Republicans and antagonism towards Democrats (the press releases are no longer available on USA’s website):
“Seniors See Senator Daschle as Roadblock to Economic Recovery” [1/8/2002].
“Seniors Deplore Senate Loss of ANWR Vote” (expressed “disappointment and dismay at the Senate’s vote against development of energy resources” in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) [4/19/02].
“Democrats Doom Prescription Drugs for Seniors” [6/13/2002].
“Senate Democrats Still Putting Politics Over People” [9/3/2002].
“Estrada Vote a Sign of the Great Liberal Deathwish?” (condemned Democratic opposition to Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada) [2/10/2003].
“Seniors Group Urges the House to Pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban” [6/4/03].
Legendary conservative activist Richard Viguerie founded USA in 1991 to “bombard[] the elderly with tens of millions of solicitations, generating millions of dollars in fees for his private companies,” according to a November 12, 1992, New York Times report. Far from a grassroots seniors organization, USA’s “board and executives consist entirely of direct-mail experts and people active in conservative causes,” the Times reported, and that the organization had been criticized by members of both parties for “preying on vulnerable old people with statements that distort the problems facing Social Security and Medicare, especially by exaggerating the threat to current retirees.”
(continued next post)
Posted by pick of the litter on Mar 2, 2005 at 3:15 PM In 1995, USA worked with discredited Republican pollster Frank Luntz to craft a controversial memo on Medicare that referred to older Americans as “pack-oriented” and “susceptible to following one very dominant person’s lead” [Washington Post, 7/23/1995]. In 1998, then-Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. William Roth (R-DE) described USA mailings that “told millions of senior citizens recent changes in Medicare posed a threat” as “a serious mistake. Roth added: “We are not here to try to scare senior citizens with respect to their health care” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2/27/1998]. In 2001, the Social Security Administration Office of Counsel to the Inspector General proposed a $554,196 fine against USA for mailing “at least 554,196 solicitations in envelopes that misused the Social Security Administration’s program words and/or letters in violation of section 1140 of the Social Security Act.” The Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board imposed the fine in 2003.
Furthermore, Washington Monthly reported in May 2004 that “during the 2002 elections, with an ‘unrestricted educational grant’ from the drug industry burning a hole in its pocket, the group [USA Next] spent roughly $14 million—the lion’s share of its budget—on ads defending Republican members of Congress for their votes on a Medicare prescription-drug bill.” Other estimates vary, but all indicate that USA spent significant amounts on targeted advertising in support of Republicans during the 2002 congressional elections. The Associated Press reported that USA “was the nation’s biggest spender on political TV ads, paying nearly $9 million for ads mainly supporting Republican candidates.” The Center for Responsive Politics noted in December 2003: “Last year, the group reportedly spent $17 million to run political ads in tight congressional races.” The center also noted that USA “made $66,000 in PAC contributions during the 2002 election cycle, all to Republicans.”
Before joining USA Next in 2001, Jarvis worked for both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. The Center for Responsive Politics reported that USA Next “has ties to the Republican party. ... Other staff and board members worked as lobbyists for the Republican Party, are former GOP congressmen, or worked for conservative organizations such as Focus on the Family. “
— J.C.
Posted to the web on Wednesday March 2, 2005 at 4:21 PM EST
Posted by pick of the litter on Mar 2, 2005 at 3:16 PM Bush is providing cover with his Social Security Crisis for his oil buddie’s while they raise oil prices.
Posted by Michael on Mar 13, 2005 at 2:40 PM I think that evidence from economists would show that your article is completely fictitious. Keep trying.
Posted by ashley on Apr 12, 2005 at 3:47 PM Put ten economists in a room and you will come up with eleven different economic therories. That’s why economics is known as the dismal science.
Posted by Thomas Shea on Apr 13, 2005 at 6:19 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dave Lindorff
- Radioactive Wounds of War
Tests on returning troops suggest serious health consequences of depleted uranium use in Iraq - Before Sunset
A broad coalition is pushing Congress to rein in the Patriot Act - GMs Healthcare Double Standard
Bad ideology trumps good business - Beating the Boomers
Why Bush and Co. are racing to cut Social Security - A Milli Vanilli President
- Protesting Too Little?
Homeland Security wants to cage dissent at this summer’s political conventions
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
