I just felt a cold chill.

I live in a heavily Democratic area and have already donated money to several candidates. Since I'm by no means wealthy, what else can I do to help bolster the Democrats' chances?

Josh, isn't there a database lying around here with candidate's positions on privatization? IIRC, Junior Kean was one of the slippery ones.

Given the number of significant slips of the tongue from Bush, such as "My brother promised me Florida", we should pay attention to his "That's not going to happen."

Eternal vigilance should be applied to the upcoming voting process. The stakes are high.

If you think the results of a Bush privatization scheme will be anything like the deal your father got, I think you're deluded. Besides Social Security, there were things like defined-benefit pensions that have also gone by the wayside.

'The guvment can't do anything right, juss leave us alone' is the belief of many Americans. The fact is every western country from Australia to France has an array of benefits for every citizen. Retired in Australia get utility, housing, health, dental, transportation subsidies, and a 'social security' pension. You don't see geriatrics working in low paid service jobs in Europe or Australia. Every citizen has health care coverage. Their voters demand the government serve all the people and do it well.

Costs for health care in the USA are over twice that of any western country and our life expectancy is below 25th in the world as we have a 'guvment' that doesn't give a crap about an efficient healthcare system.

Of course, the hundreds of lobbyists in DC and the millions they spend to get 'guvment' money, taxcuts and special deals (like the 'illegal to negotiate lower prescription prices with Medicare section of the recent Bush drug bill) show that in the USA, the government does do plenty, for those with money to contribute for re-election campaigns of those who 'represent' us. The heart of the problem is ill informed Americans vote on the ridiculous culture war issue ads and BS that comes to them on the TV before elections.

Americans keep electing people who do nothing for the country. Gutting Social Security would be the nail in the coffin for the well-being of thousands of Americans. The 'richest country on earth' can certainly afford it.

Every worker should have the opportunity and responsibility to save for a secure retirement.

Before you pile on Bush, note that the DLC is running on the above.  See anything there about preserving social security?  Don't see anything "social" there at all.  Next time the center-rightists tell you they are going to increase the size of the military and balance the budget ask them where the money is going to come from.

Nobody should react to anyone's plans for Social Security (or anyone's plans to do NOTHING about Social Security), until they understand that there is absolutely no value in the so-called Social Security "Trust Fund". It is just a number that represents the excess of SS taxes over SS benefits paid since they started keeping track of it.

Oh, yes, there are virtual U.S. Treasury bills "given" (inside some computer somewhere) to SS in amounts equal to the total FICA taxes that have been spent on some other government program. Big deal.

If SS wanted to "redeem", say, $1 trillion of their "Trust Fund", and presented $1 trillion in US Notes to the Treasury, what would then happen? Why, the Treasury would have to go sell those notes to someone else to raise the $1 trillion!

Assume there's no Trust Fund, and congress directs the Treasuary to provide $1 trillion more in cash for benefts than it receives in FICA taxes. Why, the Treasury would have to go sell $1 trillion to someone else to raise the $1 trillion.

A bazillion dollar trust fund is exactly equal to NO trust fund!

Go check it out yourselves.

When you get that unfortunate reality firmly deposited in your brains, you'll understand the problem, and the longer we wait to do something about it, the more drastic that "something" is going to have to be.

Social Security keeps most in poverty. Anyone whem oposses fixing Social Security is foolishly following the democratic party line.

We "should" and could be receiving $4000 a month, from Social Security, when we retire. This could happen if Social Security is fixed. Democrates killed the idea and thus want Americas poor which allows them to keep the ignorant votes.

TiVo,
I dunno. What data do you have to back up your statement about how lousy privatization will be? It can't be much worse than the current SS plan, which has been gutted over the years by the government "borrowing" money from it to fund other things. At least a privately administered program would put that money you and I contribute out of the reach of our fine elected officials in DC, both democrat (of which persuasion I happen to be) and republican. If you have any numbers to back up your allegation, show me.

Privitization my royal Irish arse.

If they called the enabling legislation "The Financial Services Industry Perpetual Full Employment, Guaranteed Profitability and Humongous Shareholder Capital Gains Windfall Act of 2007", how many votes would it get?

Patria est ubicumque est bene. Their 'homeland' is wherever they can turn a buck. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations

I watched the returns from the 2000 election until about 2 am, CST, channel flipping from CNN to CBS to... etc etc., I caught a moment on one channel when, Gore being the "winner" at that moment, the cameras were on Bush, advisors, some family members.

The camera focused on Bush as he was told about Gore being significantly ahead.

The expression on Bush's face and his reaction -- I no longer remember what he said -- told a very startling story: he knew Gore was not the winner. He knew. It was a very clear, very visceral moment for anyone watching. I wasn't alone in seeing this. Later, when I described it online, quite a few people responded that they'd seen Bush's eerie certainty and had had the same appalled reaction. The fix was in. It's a video clip I'd dearly love to see again. Still gives me the willies to think about it.

But, as Paul Taylor writes in tomorrow's London Observer, the real problem with America's increasingly unfair elections is the inattention down here, at ground level. That's where the bulk of the corruption takes place, at county and state level. A lousy system; easy for partisan officials to tinker with.

First of all, you present a few hypotheticals; "if SS wanted to redeem a Trillion of the trust fund....", "if Congress directs the Treasury to provide a Trillion more in cash...."
"If" is a big word.

Let me offer a counter hypothetical; Suppose Congress ordered all the banks to have an amount of cash on hand which is equal to the cash on deposit? Silly, isn't it?

As to the trust fund, what is the alternative to a Trust Fund
that holds Treasury Bills? How about a football sized stadium filled with ten dollar bills? Perhaps you should worry more about the interest on the deficit and the National Debt which is fast approaching one billion dollars per day?

Finally; Bush wants to borrow about a Trillion dollars to pay for his Social Security reform (transition costs), he will borrow by selling Treasury Bonds and this will allow the Private Account holders to buy, among other things, Treasury Bonds for retirement. All this because, according to the Republicans, the Treasury Bonds in the Trust Fund are worthless.

I think it telling that the only thing that can trump the usual GOP Reganolatry is naked greed....

Patria est ubicumque est bene. Their 'homeland' is wherever they can turn a buck. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations

If insurance is a bad idea why does nearly every family carry life unsurance? Because unlike investments, it might not pay hugely but will absolutely pay what it promised. Every wise investor puts a large amount in low-yield, secure instruments. When it comes to your last years, would you choose high-yield, high-risk or low-yield low risk? Given there is no use for a windfall if you die, and great hardship if you live without the windfall, I would bet you choose security. So what do you want in a private account that's any better than SS? Especially since there is not a posse of brokers making money off you w/SS.

Here's a what if: you're about to retire and there is a major attack on an oil producing country. Market crashes and your stocks tank.

Here's another: you're about to retire and so is everyone else in the Baby Boom. What happens to stock prices when there is a general selloff?

If the US gov has to default on payouts the stock and bond markets would have crashed long before.

The "problems" with SS are neither severe nor imminent. They may not even exist at all. SS's own projecitons, have in the past, been too conservative. Every time they have given a range of futures, it is the most optimistic one that ended up matching reality. The most recent projection, much discussed as showing a shortfall in 2042, is the middle one, not the optimistic one. So past history would say forget the problems.

And even the Baby Boom demographic hump may not be the problem it seems, since folks like me are not likley to retire soon--I have huge college loans to pay and no investments. I'll be working for years still and I'm sure in this economy I have lots of company.

Social Security - a convenient way to dump the care of YOUR elderly parents in others' laps. I would rather see my kids pay into their 401K and reap the long term bnefits.

I remember all those Enron employees who made the mistake of thinking that they should put their money into America's hottest company... with the encouragement and applause of the CEO and CFO of America's hottest company... and with the encouragement and applause of a great many financial analysts and advisors...

Remind me. How they doing, these days?

Of course, benevolent liberals realize they are ripping minorities off.

Well now, from a strategic perspective, this is mondo interesting, don't you think? Follow along kids, I'm going to lay it out.

1) Mid term elections are coming up.

2) The President is incredibly unpopular.

3) The Republicans are in big trouble, and in danger of losing one or both majorities (I doubt it, but this is the way the polls are playing).

4) Bush has to know that the Republicans are in trouble, in the mid terms.

5) Bush also has to know that there's no support at all for reforming social security, and a lot of opposition to it. Coming out with it right now, should hurt the Republicans for the mid terms.

So, why is he doing it? Why is he doing something that is so obviously counterproductive and stupid? Why is a man, an administration whose only skill seems to be at knocking down an emasculated Democratic party, risk riling up them and the general public?

I can think of two possible reasons.

1) He's manufacturing an issue for the Republicans to get some distance. Here's how it works: He says something stupid or controversial, the Republicans get up in arms and oppose it. Because its on the left side of the political continuum, the Republican candidates get to march on over into Democratic territory, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and all that. Bush backs down or goes silent.

Now, two interesting things happen in this scenario. First, the Democrats lose control of the issue. Instead of Social Security being an issue to galvanize the party and provide a clear distinction for voters between Democrats and Republicans, it becomes a wishy washy 'mom' issue. The Republicans are on side too. It's bipartisan, which means that the Democrats don't really have a clear issue here to encourage people to vote for them instead of the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Republicans establish both the social conscious 'moderate' bona fides, digging into the independents and middle of the roaders who might otherwise go with the Democrats and they establish their independence from Bush, which allows them to shed all his negatives. What do you think? I think it might just work.

Now, the problem with this plan, is that it requires George W. Bush to play the goat and take one for the team. Given the degree of evil and megalomania we see, I'm not sure its likely. There's a question as to whether he'd knowingly go for it.

On the other hand, Karl Rove is smart enough, that he might put Bush in the situation of unknowingly going for it. Karl tells George to say something, George says it, there's a big storm... George is upset, but Karl says 'relax, you'll win in the end.' Bush bites his lip, shuts his mouth and waits for after the mid-terms, the humiliation of the event leaving him absolutely bent on privatizing social security.

Sort of a disturbing view of the President, isn't it? The guy as a clueless human sock puppet. But come on, every single person who has dealt with him professionally has remarked on his incuriousity. He doesn't think, he doesn't care. He asks no questions. He doesn't think anything through. The really evil stuff is being done for him, and he's content to be moved around like a chess piece. This kind of shabby double play is what Rove is good at.

He wouldn't enjoy being put in this sausage grinder. And if he understood, he'd be damned angry. But you know what? He doesn't understand, he'll just react. So much for so much.

Now, is this the trick that is going to win their mid-term for them? Maybe. Maybe not. My guess is that this is just one of a whole bunch of things they're going to be rolling out. It's trial and error. They'll pull a bunch, see what works, and go wild with that.

Okay, following along kids? Now, here's scenario #2, and its shorter and a lot more compact.

1) The fix is in.

2) Bush knows the fix is in.

3) He doesn't even give a shit, he's just rubbing it in. Kind of a cold joke, or a F*** you.

So, ladies and germs, whattaya think. Bush may be a fool, but the people behind him trade stupidity for evil. They're not necessarily fools. So...

Is there a third option I'm missing.

Review and discuss.

So the money that we owe to our citizens who have paid in for their entire working lives is not "backed up," and so the treasury won't pay it, huh?

But the trillions that we borrow daily from China (and also can't "back up" will be paid because, after all, we owe it!

Gee, you sound like someone who believes the republican mantra -- we must honor our debts to big business and the war machine, but forget about regular citizens.

Jan Knaus

Am I a moron (wouldn't be the first time)? It seems like people on here are replying to posts that I can't seem to find, like this quotation (which I can see in the reply, but there doesn't appear to be an original post...):

"Social Security - a convenient way to dump the care of YOUR elderly parents in others' laps. I would rather see my kids pay into their 401K and reap the long term bnefits."

Finally, I think this is a winner of an issue to publicize - SS privatization, the return! Privatization got crushed last time, and I can't see why opinion might have changed in the last year or so. Of course, it does seem to add to the incentives not to be the minority party in all branches of the Federal government anymore - if we keep losing elections, the Republicans will eventually succeed in trashing just about every bit of protection we have (of which, by the standards of the developed world, we already have relatively little).

401ks have been business' way of abdicating responsibility for the retirements of their employees. The old defined benefit retirement packages were professionally run, invested in a variety of financial instruments from stocks to bonds to cash, and allowed for a stable pension at retirement. The many privatization plans for Social Security abidicate the government's responsibility for the retirement of its citizens in the same way as the 401k does for private businesses. It becomes the worker's responsibility to choose how to invest his money, and God help him if he chooses unwisely. There will be no safety net like we have today. Workers are already able to invest for their retirement in the stock market, and have been able to do so for around 30 years. Tax law changes created the IRA which let workers invest some of their pay in investments tax deferred until they began withdrawing it in their retirement years. Now, if you told me that the SSA was simply going to take a percentage of the SS revenue and invest it in the securities market professionally, then I would be on board with that.

At least they know their enemies. I still credit Josh and TPM for the stillbirth of their first attempt to eliminate Social Security.

Re: Nobody should react to anyone's plans for Social Security (or anyone's plans to do NOTHING about Social Security), until they understand that there is absolutely no value in the so-called Social Security "Trust Fund".

If that is true then there is no value in any US government security. In fact, every dollar bill in your wallet is worthless.
But fear not-- the market very much disagrees with you. Despite GOP drunken-sailor-with-a-VISA-card-in-a-whorehouse spend-and-borrow policies the market still regards US government securities as good as gold.

In a quick swing through some conservative blogs earlier, I noticed that this story shows up a lot when the topic is social security.

There were an amazing amount of grandfathers working at the railroad all the live long day. Occasionally, a grandmother would have the same experience.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003

Thanks for the enlightenment, Ellen. Not being a bean counter, I am certainly not an expert in this tier 2, tier 1 stuff. I guess that since he (my dad) seemed to get a lot more bang for his buck for what he had invested in the system than I have, his plan was privately managed. During my professional career as an engineer, I have always maxed out my fica account contributions around this time every year, and over my 40 year career, that adds up to a LOT of money I have paid into the system. Most of those years were ruled by a democratically-controlled congress, which I helped to elect. I know what my dad got from his railroad retirement, and I get these statements from the ss admin telling me what I will get. As I asserted originally, I wish I could have had access to a well run retirement fund management when I started out.

I agree with a lot of the analysis, but I think that the third possibility is this: it is a fundraiser that will bring a billion or so into Republican party coffers for November and Bush is counting on the rest of the media (especially televison) to mostly ignore the story even when and if Democrats speak out on the matter. Those media almost always do what is necessary for the Republicans to win because they are all but inseparable from the Republican party apparatus, much like the fundie churches.

global citizen

Are you out of touch with reality, working for the Republicans, or both?

Tom

More on Bush's "Income Redistribution Plan"  -- aside from astronomical corporate profits, zero corporate taxation levels, we also have the "GWOT" and it is costing you plenty:

62,006 - the number killed in the 'war on terror'

By David Randall and Emily Gosden Published: 10 September 2006

"The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth...."

"...The extraordinary scale of the conflict's impact, claiming lives from New York to Bali and London to Lahore, and the extent of the death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, has emerged from an Independent on Sunday survey to mark the fifth anniversary of 11 September.

"It used new, unpublished data supplied by academics and organisations such as Iraq Body Count and Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire, plus estimates given by other official studies. The result is the first attempt to gauge the full cost in blood and money of the worldwide atrocities and military conflicts that began in September 2001...."

"...Beyond the blood price, there is a dollar and sterling cost. In July it was reported that the US Congress had approved $437bn (£254bn) for costs related to the "war on terror".

"This, a sum greater than those spent on the Korean and Vietnam wars, compares to the $375bn that Make Poverty History says is needed to clear the debts of the world's poorest nations. The British Government has spent £4.5bn on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Full story: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1433404.ece

He hasn't been impeached yet because Republicans control Congress. If there were only some way to change that... What could we do? Oh I remember, VOTE!!

 I'm a retired engineer too, and I had access to the 401k investment program, as you also did, I am sure.  I invested heavily in that plan, and now get about half of my retirement income from it.  You could have done the same.

Social Security has never been an investment.  It doesn't provide a "return on the investment".  Comparing it to a stock purchase plan, for example, is an apples and beets comparison.  Social Security is a program where today's workers FICA taxes go to pay the retirement benefits of todays retirees, with the surplus being invested in treasury bonds, to be available later when the baby boomers retire.  It is not subject to stock market fluctuations - the retirement benefit does not go up with good stock market conditions, nor down with bad stock market conditions.  It is more of an insurance program than an investment program.

People have always needed to save money and invest it unless they wanted to retire at near poverty income.  You, as an engineer, knew that, as I did.  Please, don't pretend otherwise. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I suppose this means I can answer my first question in the affirmative. Thanks! -Justin

... unless the vote is rigged.

Tom

Hoppy,
Of course I invested in 401(k)s when I was working for large companies which had such, and also did my own IRA investing when I went into business for myself as a freelance consultant. I know what a self-managed retirement plan can do for returns. My complaint is that the money I put into SS is not discressionary, and I think it is poorly administered. If it had a better ROI, a lot more retirees from this country would be a lot better off, and the system would not be in danger of collapse in the not-too-distant future. I would like to have a say in how some of my SS money is spent.

Many of us are suspicious of the concern over Social Security not because there aren't challenges, but because there are more immediate financial challenges, starting with Medicare, and including current deficits and balance-of-trade worries. Then there's that too-flat tax rate structure.

So an apparently undue emphasis on SS looks ideological.

That's a valid concern but it's not a reason to not vote.

You are right to point to debt as terribly important. However, there are some choices that could be made to deal with that worry (how about not spending half a trillion on war, or large tax breaks where not needed?)

The CIA crowd will disagree about the cause of Soviet collapse, claiming credit for bleeding them in Afghanistan. And people in Jonathan Schell's camp will point to the growing power of Solidarity and communication into and out of Soviet Russia, leading to popular discontent that could no longer be contained.

Only if there are no new taxpayers in the future would SS fail. Hey, how about all those immigrants that want to work?

Can we find something else to fix instead of something that ain't broke?

Actually, Seashell, under the Administration's proposal, there was indeed an option not to invest at all. The savings accounts offered were to be purely voluntary.

Referring to the Administration's proposal as "privatization" or "phasing out" Social Security is simply incorrect. Even the
Washington Post, no supporter of the President's, recently weighed in on why the term isn't accurate. Their piece is worth reading.

As Cubsfan correctly stated in his post, Social Security has to be dealt with no matter which party is in charge, and the issue isn't the phony one of "privatization." It's not a matter of whether Social Security has to be restructured; it's a matter of when and how.

The Trustees began to project the total Social Security shortfall (the present value of all future benefit obligations minus projected assets) in 2003. Their estimate then was $10.5 Trillion. The current estimate is $13.4 Trillion. Most of the deterioration is attributable solely to the loss of three years of time.

The USSR was able to keep up with us militarily for decades, without ever matching our spending (in absolute terms). They even were ahead of us in many areas, such as the H-bomb and long-range missiles. They were able to do this consistently for decades. Then it all fell apart. Was this caused by excessive US spending on a missile defense program that never worked? Or did it maybe have something to do with the Soviet Union hitting peak oil right at that time?

In other news, Social Security taxes were raised in 1983. Because of that, Social Security has an enormous surplus, which has been invested in government bonds until they are needed to fund the baby boomers' retirement. The federal government will have to raise taxes, cut spending or increase the debt in order to pay off its bonds. But that's a federal government problem, not a Social Security problem.

The looming Social Security problem is that its reserves are so huge that it is a prime target for looting, which is exactly what Bush is trying to do.