Thursday, September 06, 2007

GOP Schemes to Steal Social Security Exposed

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP hopes that you have forgotten the shot fired recently across the bow. Elite George Bush partisans teamed up with Wall Street insiders, called "my base" by George Bush, to "fix" the only government scheme that isn't broken --Social Security.

As the Iraq war continues to steal headlines, the GOP, to be sure, is still at work on evil schemes to break Social Security so that they can fix both it and you --for good!

The GOP would have you believe that if Social Security is not broken now it's about to be, the year 2018 to be precise! As Bush told reporters: "(Social Security) can't sustain that which has been promised to the workers. Many times, legislative bodies will not react unless the crisis is apparent, crisis is upon them. I believe that crisis is."

What the GOP will not tell you is that Social Security is the only Federal Program that "turns a profit", that is, the cash flow is positive, taking in more than it pays out, just as intended. If the Trust Fund is broke, it is the GOP regimes of Reagan and Bush Sr that broke it. Those regimes are notable for having run up higher debts and deficits than any Democratic regime since World War II. If SS were not solvent, Republican regimes could not raid the mythical "social security trust fund" to pay its current obligations.
A Crisis in 2018? Privatizers claim that as soon as Social Security needs to use some of the interest the trust is earning, the treasury just won't be able to come up with the money. Oddly, the Treasury has borrowed billions for every other reason; why not to pay back the Social Security it owes us?

But the clincher is this. Private accounts would divert between 1/3 and 1/2 of Social Security's payroll-tax income, normally used to pay retirees, and put into private accounts. This would stop the money now flowing into the trust so some interest would need to be withdrawn the first year this started, and more would be needed each year.

--Is There a Social Security Crisis?

Bush taylors his message to his audience. Those over 55 need not worry, he says. It's only those expecting to retire in 2018 who will find nothing in the fund for them. That's because Bush will have spent it murdering people in Iraq --a heinous war crime for which he should be tried for capital war crimes and high treason. If SS should go broke, it will be because George W. Bush would have both his war of aggression and his tax cut benefit only America's dwindling elite.
Interest earnings on trust fund assets alone will be sufficient to cover the annual difference between cost and tax revenue
until 2025. The dollar level of the Trust Funds is projected to be drawn down
beginning in 2025 until assets are exhausted in 2037. I

--THE 2010 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS

Franklin Roosevelt Signs Social Security

Contrary to what Social Security opponents will tell you, Social Security actually turns a profit, or, as Paul Krugman puts it: "Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits." The Social Security program is a success and the positive cash flow proves that it is operating just as its architects intended. Social Security, in fact, may be the government's only success story.

Because it is a rousing success, the revenues are coveted by what Bush himself calls his "base", a tiny elite, less than five percent of the populace, who own almost 90 percent or more of the nation's total wealth. These folk will not admit to you or to themselves that the danger is not the imminent demise of SS, it is, rather, the ultimate bankruptcy of the United States itself.
America is in a very grievous and trepid situation. Any number of isolated incidents could touch off a financial firestorm that burns our house to the ground. When a company goes bankrupt, it is seldom advertised in advance.

Its customers, shareholders and debtors are invariably in a state of shock when the bankruptcy occurs, even though hind site shows that there were ample evidences of impending bankruptcy.

So it is with America: There is evidence everywhere of what is happening to us, but there are few eyes to see it nor ears to hear it.

--The August Review, America Plundered by the Global Elite

America's elite, of course, have an escape hatch --offshore accounts and investments never taken into account by the partisans of trickle down theory. America's elite will have played a key role in America's demise. They've already swarmed to pick over the carcass.
He actually wants to do the opposite. If he manages to privatize Social Security, he'll try to privatize Medicare next. He'll try to strip away guaranteed health care and turn it into some kind of system of individual health accounts. The right says that what we need is more choice, more competition. But every piece of evidence suggests that health care is an area in which privatization actually raises costs. If they succeed at dismantling both Social Security and Medicare, then you're pretty much back, on domestic policy, to the days of Warren Harding -- which is exactly where they want to go.

--Paul Krugman, Rolling Stone

Thus, in a very short article, we can only sketch the vaguest outline of a vast conspiracy that has changed little in several hundred years. Modern GOP tactics were written about in Utopia by a man who is now called a Saint. Please tell Sir Thomas More that conspiracies do not exist!
The rich men not only by private fraud, but also by common laws, do every day pluck and snatch away from the poor some part of their daily living. So whereas it seemed before unjust to recompense with unkindness their pains that have been beneficial to the public weal, now they have to this their wrong and unjust dealing given the name of justice, yea, and that by force of law. Therefore when I consider and weigh in my mind all these commonwealths, which nowadays anywhere do flourish, so God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.

--Sir Thomas More, Utopia

Additional resources


Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Share

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

13 comments:

Bill Woessner said...

What the GOP will not tell you is that Social Security is the only Federal Program that "turns a profit", that is, the cash flow is positive, taking in more than it pays out, just as intended.

The only reason that's true is because the middle class is paying through the nose for it. The Social Security tax now stands at 12.4%, a whopping 6.2 times higher than in 1937. On top of that, the base has been increased by an astounding 125% over inflation. Despite these dramatic increases, benefits have actually been lowered. At this point, many Americans now pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, making it a truly onerous tax, indeed.

If that were not so, the federal government could not routinely raid the mythical "social security trust fund" to pay current obligations.

The Social Security Trust Fund is a prime example of WAAP (Washington Accepted Accounting Principles). Since its inception, Social Security has always been required to "invest" its surpluses in treasury bonds. Unfortunately, the national debt has always exceeded the "value" of the trust fund. This is nothing specific to the Bush administration. It's just WAAP.

Unknown said...

Bill Woessner said...

The only reason that's true is because the middle class is paying through the nose for it. The Social Security tax now stands at 12.4%, a whopping 6.2 times higher than in 1937.

As the GOP often reminded during their most recent campaign to "privatize", it's YOUR money. Indeed, it is. But it won't be at ANY RATE if the GOP is allowed to "privatize" i,e, STEAL SS.

The Social Security Trust Fund is a prime example of WAAP (Washington Accepted Accounting Principles).

Indeed, and that's hardly an argument supporting the privatization of SS.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and the repugs want to privatize it so their banking cartels can cash in on that whopping 6.2 times figure. Screw that noise, in true gopper form, trying to create a problem where one does not exist, then some how squeeze a profit out for themselves. Besides, 6.2 times anything does not mean much, how does it hold up to wage vs. withdrawal rates vs. inflation ratio comparatives between then and now...that would be a bit more to chew on, and even then there would certainly be other analysis needed.

benmerc

Diane B said...

All I know, is I paid into this account for well over twenty years, and my deceased former husband paid in for well over thirty years. Now, like many, many other people in this Country nearing retirement age they want to do away with it.

But, you know,I really feel were heading towards a complete financial melt down.
I, only hope, I'm wrong.

SadButTrue said...

Shouldn't that be shot across the bow?

And what kind of person would prefer Enron's accounting principles to Washington's? The efficiencies touted for capitalism are for the FREE MARKET variety, not for the crony capitalism practiced nowadays.

Unknown said...

Indeed, sabuttrue, it should be "bow" and I've made the correction.

I suspect that the only things the GOP can find to criticize about SS are the things that GOP dominated government has DONE TO Social Security. That's typical of their thinking. By the same logic, minimum wages should be lowered, taxes on working classes increased, utility rates raised, prices on fuels should go up. It's the fault of the poor that they are poor.

Likewise, because GOPPERS in Congress cannot control PENTAGON PORK, they will raise the SS trust fund with various means to include sloppy accounting --and then they will blame the SS for their own criminality and incompetence.

The GOP is endemically dishonest, a party of liars and crooks, a criminal conspiracy that ought to be prosecuted under RICO. I have news for the GOP! The First Amendment does NOT protect the planning and commission of crimes against the people.

In fact, the GOP has so many complicit Democrat turn coats working for them --I advocate investigating the criminality of the entire government. It has just gotten out of hand.

Bill Woessner said...

But it won't be at ANY RATE if the GOP is allowed to "privatize" i,e, STEAL SS.

How is letting workers keep their money stealing? Isn't that the exact opposite of stealing? Taking money from workers... that's stealing.

Besides, 6.2 times anything does not mean much

No? Then how about this. Next year, when you're filing your 2007 income tax return, take your tax liability and multiply it by 6.2. Pay that much, instead, and then tell me that "6.2 times anything does not mean much".

how does it hold up to wage vs. withdrawal rates vs. inflation ratio comparatives between then and now

Please don't call it "withdrawal". That implies a sense of ownership and, as we all know, we do not own our Social Security benefits (one more reason why they can't be stolen).

Social Security benefits are indexed to wage growth. So the only important comparison is the replacement rate, which has remained relatively constant. However, full retirement age has been pushed back 2 years. Since the life expentancy of a 65-year-old is 18 years, this amounts to a 2/18 = 11% reduction in benefits.

So I maintain: The tax has been increased 520%, the base has been increased 125% and benefits have been reduced 11%. Yep, that's Social Security.

Unknown said...

Bill Woessner said...

How is letting workers keep their money stealing? Isn't that the exact opposite of stealing? Taking money from workers... that's stealing.

If that's your position, why turn it over to Wall Street? GOP schemes, in fact, DON'T let workers is keep their money.

If the intention of the GOP is to allow worker bees to keep their own money, then why create a bureaucratic scheme in which Wall Street insiders are put in charge of investing your money?

If, in fact, privatization amounts to nothing more than "letting workers" keep their money, why is Wall Street involved at all? Don't bother. I already know the answer to that.

If your reasoning were, in any way, correct, why don't I just keep the monies I pay in income taxes? In fact, SS monies are treated differently because it was never intended to wind up in the general fund. Why did it?

Why doesn't the GOP just drop the facade and admit that they just want to abolish SS?

Besides, 6.2 times anything does not mean much

To you! Besides, my case doesn't rise or fall with 6.2. Or any other number, for that matter.

So I maintain: The tax has been increased 520%, the base has been increased 125% and benefits have been reduced 11%. Yep, that's Social Security.

So, now you call it a "tax"! Why, then, do GOP politicians routinely call it a "trust fund". Which is it?

Secondly, cite your source. Finally, no one has ever said that the government has been responsible with regard to SS, the Budget, our money! There is no reason to believe that the the same Wall Street and the same party who gave us the savings and loan scandal, the CA energy crisis, Enron, BCCI, and the GOP, itself a scandal, will do a better job? In fact, I would oppose any SS scheme supported by any GOP politician because the GOP is literally owned by Wall Street and has not credibility.

Please don't call it "withdrawal". That implies a sense of ownership and, as we all know, we do not own our Social Security benefits (one more reason why they can't be stolen).

That's your word. And YES --if it's money, it can be stolen. The GOP is expert at it. EVERY politician who's ever demagogued this issue calls SS a "trust fund" and, in the same sentence, reminds citizens that is "your money"! "Your money" was, as I recall, Bush's words. Are you saying Bush was lying? Gadzooks!!!! Imagine that!

Secondly, as I citizen, I maintain that even the "taxes" I pay are "my" monies as a citizen of this nation. That is the case, unless, of course, our government has become nothing more than a shakedown.

I happen to believe the words of the founders who, when they created this nation with what Bush calls that "goddamned piece of paper", recognized the people as "sovereign". Not just pretty phraseology, it is the supreme law of the land. So ----YES! It's my money! And that includes the income tax monies that GOP regimes routinely misappropriate in illegal wars of naked aggression and other GOP pork.

I don't think you comprehend the bigger picture.

If ANY of the monies I pay into the Social Security trust fund is spent financing immoral wars of naked aggression. war crimes, then I have been robbed. Secondly, if this money is turned over to Wall Street in a crazy GOP scheme to reward cronies with big commissions, I am similarly robbed. I object to the millions that will be paid to the Wall Street carpetbaggers whose services I do not need.

The GOP has failed to demonstrate a compelling need to do anything more to Social Security other than to keep their lyin', greedy mits off the monies that are paid into the trust fund. That means NOT paying current expenses out of the trust fund. It means NOT bankrupting the nation by incinerating civilians in Iraq. That means acting like a responsible government and NOT the mafia. It means keeping OUR monies out of the hands of war criminals who have bankrupted this nation by murdering over one million civilians in a nation that was NEVER a threat, NEVER had anything whatsoever to do with "terrorism".

The GOP has been utterly irresponsible --not only with monies paid into the SS trust fund, but with the tax revenues that wind up in the Pentagon Black Hole.

I would fully support any Federal Judge who might have the courage to convene a grand jury that might consider bringing racketeering (RICO) charges against the GOP.

Bill Woessner said...

If that's your position, why turn it over to Wall Street?

I wouldn't. When did I say that? You're putting words in my mouth. I, personally would invest in stocks, just like I currently invest my 401k in stocks. But I wouldn't force that decision on anyone.

In fact, SS monies are treated differently because it was never intended to wind up in the general fund. Why did it?

I can't answer that. You'd have to ask the people who originally drafted the Social Security Act. Social Security has been required to invest its surplus in treasury bonds since its inception. Ergo, it has always been comingled with the general fund. This is nothing new.

Why doesn't the GOP just drop the facade and admit that they just want to abolish SS?

Well I'm not a Republican and I certainly can't speak for the GOP. But, personally, I would love to get rid of Social Security. I think it's an absolutely absurd attempt an anti-poverty program. We could do much better with much less. Consider the following:

Without government intervention, there would be 55 million Americans living in poverty. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, TANF, SIC, food stamps, section 8, etc., reduce that number to 30 million. That's an abyssmal success rate of 45.5%. What if, instead of all the BS programs we currently have, the government cut a $10K check to each person in poverty? That would COMPLETELY ELIMINATE POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES. How much would it cost? $10K * 55 million = $550 billion: less than we currently spend on Social Security and FAR less than the $1.6 TRILLION in total social spending.

Look, I have no problem with helping out the poor. I WANT to help out the poor. But our patchwork of social programs doesn't accomplish that goal. Instead, they're designed to buy votes, plain and simple. Social Security is am extremely effective means of purchasing the senior vote (at the expense of people who haven't even been born). In essence, it is legalized bribery.

Secondly, cite your source.

Social Security Base History
Social Security Rate History
Inflation Calculator
Increase in retirement age
IRS Life Expectancy Tables
Original Social Security Act
2005 Poverty Report

I used a different source for the life expectancy of a 65-year-old. According to the IRS, it's now 21 years. So benefits have only been reduced 9.5%.

Finally, no one has ever said that the government has been responsible with regard to SS, the Budget, our money!

Exactly. And that's precisely why I want to give as little of it to the government as possible.

Unknown said...

Bill Woessner said...

Well I'm not a Republican and I certainly can't speak for the GOP. But, personally, I would love to get rid of Social Security. I think it's an absolutely absurd attempt an anti-poverty program. We could do much better with much less.

And what's wrong with anti-poverty?

Unless you have a better plan, SS is the alternative to a humanitarian crisis the likes of which this nation has not seen since the great depression.

And, don't kid yourself, the great depression was the cumulative results of at least three laissez faire, do nothing regimes: Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

I repeat, until something better comes along, SS is doing just fine. That's why the GOP has it in their cross hairs. The GOP sees $billions$ in the float. They want their share for themselves and their minions on Wall Street.

Bill Woessner said...

And what's wrong with anti-poverty?

Nothing. I said as much in my last comment. I guess you didn't read it in its entirety. Or you're so steeped in partisanism that you can't consider anything other than "Social Security good; anything else bad". That is, after all, the Democrats' party line (and with good reason; the Democrats have used Social Security to garner votes for decades).

There are many, better, cheaper alternatives to Social Security. I outlined just one in my previous comment: an anti-poverty program that is both cheaper and more effective than anything the stooges in Washington have been able to put together.

You want national health care? My proposal extends to include that quite easily. Just include the cost of health insurance in the poverty computation. Done!

Your comments get to the heart of what's wrong with politics, today. So many people are blinded by partisanship that they've become radically conservative (in the traditional sense), unwilling to even CONSIDER that there are viable alternatives to their viewpoint.

Based on your abject hatred of the GOP, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're a Democrat, the traditionally liberal party. But, at least on the topic of Social Security, you have demonstrated complete intolerance for anything but the status quo. And that, my friend, is the exact opposite of liberal thought.

Unknown said...

Or you're so steeped in partisanism that you can't consider anything other than "Social Security good; anything else bad".

Regulars to this forum know that I've been more critical of Democrats of late than evil GOPPERS.

There are many, better, cheaper alternatives to Social Security.

That depends upon what you call "cheaper". If your "alternative" plan involves "privatization" in which Wall St. talkes their cut, citizens are still stuck with the income taxes that they pay whether the govt overseas SS or not. Hence, for them, if not the govt, "privatization" will also cost more.

You want national health care? My proposal extends to include that quite easily. Just include the cost of health insurance in the poverty computation. Done!

Why don't you run for office? In the meantime, the GOP can keep their greedy mitts off SS.

Based on your abject hatred of the GOP, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're a Democrat, the traditionally liberal party.

Wrong on both counts. I DESPISE the GOP and can barely tolerate what the Democratic party has become. Both are just two wings of a single right wing party.

jd chandler said...

woody guthrie boiled that thomas moore quote down to tis essence. he said:

some will rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen.