As Dean Baker noted (Beat the Press, 9/7/12), corporate media mostly missed one of the major pieces of news in President Barack Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention.
Barack Obama
Talking about the federal budget deficit, Obama said, “Now, I’m still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission.” Then, as he talked about what he would and wouldn’t do to reduce the deficit, he included this line: “And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it—not by turning it over to Wall Street.”
“Responsible steps to strengthen it”—what does that mean? Dean Baker helpfully paraphrases:
President Obama implicitly called for cutting Social Security by 3 percent and phasing in an increase in the normal retirement age to 69 when he again endorsed the deficit reduction plan put forward by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of his deficit commission.
This would be a good thing for voters to know about, wouldn’t it?
Baker’s blog post explains the 3 percent thing—the result of proposed games with the cost of living adjustment. As for raising the retirement age, that requires further discussion—because that’s one of the big lies of the Social Security discussion.
The thing is, nobody who proposes raising the retirement age is really proposing raising the retirement age. If you were just raising the retirement age, you’d have to wait until you were (say) 69 to stop working, but when you did, you get the same benefits that you would now if you retired at age 69.
But no one’s proposing that—because that would save hardly any money. The way Social Security works is that you can retire whenever you want starting at age 62—but the longer you wait, the more money you get. The government tries to calculate it based on life expectancy so that whatever date you pick, you end getting (on average) about the same amount of money.
So when they “raised the retirement age”—as they’ve been in the process of doing for decades now—they didn’t say that you couldn’t retire at 62 anymore. They said that if you retired at 62, you’d get less money. And you’d get less money if you retired at 63, or 64, or 65, or….
There’s a more accurate way than “raising the retirement age” to describe this policy of lowering the amount of money someone at any given age receives when they retire. It’s “cutting Social Security benefits.”
Of course, the limitations of Social Security as an insurance program would be of no consequence if the US adhered to its commitment under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
It wouldn’t be about what you paid in. You would get what you need to live a dignified life.
Now, this isn’t some “com – yun- ist plot”. This is what our gummint agreed to over sixty years ago.
But it isn’t legally binding.
Only morally.
And you know how much water that sieve holds.
Absolutely ‘right on’ about it being a lowering of benefits and not the raising of retirement age. Between the fawning ‘corpress’ and the semantics of the right-wing politicians, everyone needs to research closely exactly what is being proposed.
And Mr. Latimer – I’ve seen you taking a few hits here lately but I have always found your comments to be thoughtful, educational, and always on point. Thank you for taking time to contribute in this forum.
Mr. Smith, I very much appreciate your appreciation.
As the subhead at my blog states, what I try to do is make “an inexpert attempt at contradicting the contradictions”.
To me, this isn’t about opinions and attitudes, or political punditry.
It’s about life and death.
That I sometimes try to address that reality in an unorthodox manner should never be taken as flippancy.
It may be wordplay
But it’s deadly serious.
Again, thanks for the mensch thing.
Interesting……I have almost never seen Obama take a hit on this sight ,and yet there it is in Black and white.At least I think so.Im a little stunned.Like seeing Bigfoot cross the road.
My guess is you are overshooting a bit on the Bamster.His main goal is to give everyone of his constituents ,everything he thinks they need- and damn the cost or the torpedos.To believe he is looking at this from a cost logic perspective is not believable to me.There is more to the story.
Considering the present economy, shouldn’t social security lower the retirement age, and give retiring people their full benefits? So many are unemployed and it seems sad to force people to have their money cut if they are forced to retire early due to lack of jobs.
The awful economy seems to have more to do with corporations like G.E paying very little, and Corning paying none at all, and yet asking for more cuts. Why do so many have the ability to keep their monies off shore and untaxed? How can companies off shore jobs and pay no taxes? Why are there still no tax cuts on the 1% ,because surely people have had enough time to see that doesn’t work? Isn’t “trickle down more akin to S**T upon?
Besides, if G.W.’s privatizing plan had gone into effect, how many seniors would have lost all their money when Wall St., like the dragon ,Grendal, grabbed up their monies and flamed it into oblivion?
If this privatizing becomes law, what will we have, bundling people’s futures like mortgage loans where no one can figure out whose money is where? Why would anyone trust a stock broker at this point anyway? The stock market started as a private club, and it seems that it still is.
I don’t believe there is a money problem with social security. As soon as the Pentagon has to actually have a budget, and that they get no more money until they can account for where all of it has gone so far , then the government will have not a shortfall in any of the NECESSARY programs that the PEOPLE of this nation need.
I really think that those who want to cut and privatize this program which helps so many from the disabled to the seniors, that they are the new version of terrorist in this nation.
That’s right, Gloriana. Noy only should the retirement age be lowered, but benefits should be raised as well. As we all know, simply removing the cap will solve any funding problems. You know what? Obama, Simpson, and Bowles know this, too, but they aren’t interested in “saving” Social Security. Certainly Simpson has made it plain that he despises the program, and Bowles has no use for it either. The President? Who knows. His chief concern is hammering out a deal with his sworn enemies in order to look and feel good about being the Great Conciliator. (Be sure to check out Tom Frank’s excellent essay in this month’s Harper’s magazine about our waffling, naive President.)
No, Gloriana, they’re not a new threat. They represent the same people who brought us the Civil War, murder workers wherever and whenever they dare seek food and security for their families. They are the same rapacious, greedy, unfeeling sons-of-bitches who really believe they deserve more than anyone else. They are completely in control of both wings of the Money Party.
Lock and load!
Mat take a chill pill, and DONT lock and load.This is what happens when people buy into the separatist class war fare community agitator mentality.We are all one people.
Tim you and Gloriana want more people to retire early with more benefits?Well hello Greece!!!How about our seniors who are home all day, go back to work and show this generation how it is done.
I loved during the DNC every speaker started with “my grandfather worked 6 jobs to make it.”Notice it was as if- that is below present day Americans.Since when?
One of the very best approaches to carry out couponing properly would be to
follow the suggestions of different people.
It can be your friend, family, and on occasion even the web opinions.
Following a trend, where in fact the people are being gained
is definitely reliable. While you can simply get data for employing a promotion with sears discount rule, it saves your time and effort
as well. This can also work vice versa, where you can help
others while sharing your experience on the net or during socialization.
As it happened, Richard Sears was a great deal in song for the progressions in his country and used
them with his new organization. Mail request buying changed into yet another structure, as individuals we’re starting to move west and more railroads were being built. Consumers from on the region were exceptionally energized to really have the capability to ask such excellent things while never having to leave their homes.
At sears voucher can be used on jewelries, apparels, automotive services and products, and masses more. You can get a voucher which can be employed on any particular brand or product class. There are deals which may be applied in a specific number of purchase. In this case, there might not be any limit for selecting the merchandise. Therefore, it can be easily comprehended that how valuable the deals can be so far as your purchase from Sears is worried. Beginning the women sandals to even the beds and the fitness equipments, the said coupons can be utilized in a variety of goods, as stated earlier.