Democrats Will "Compromise" With Bush On Social Security Cuts

If we let them, they will compromise. Most Democrat and some nervous Republican members of Congress may stop Bush's privatization scheme from becoming law. However, they very well might agree to alternative legislation that will in fact undermine and reduce the social security benefits for elderly Americans. And they will call such a compromise a victory! After all, they did stop privitization.

The Bush government has a "back-up" plan in reserve in the event his so-called "private investment accounts" plan falters. Plan "B" has not been widely publicized and few Democratic politicians have commented on its proposals.

Yesterday George Bush said: "I'm willing to work with anybody, Republican or Democrat or independent, who wants to come in and discuss ways to solve the problem. Everything is on the table except raising payroll taxes."

So what are the other proposals that Bush is willing to work with Democrats on to "solve" this bogus problem?

In his State of the Union speech Bush said: "Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table."

So there you have it.

Cut benefit increases.

Raise the retirement age.

Penalize those who retire "early".

Reduce benefits.

It would be good if Democratic Party leaders, beginning with Howard Dean, spoke out loudly and clearly against ALL of these proposals to undermine social security.

Will they? That depends upon what we do. If a huge mass movement of millions is organized to defend our social security we can beat back this attack. It must be big, it must be highly visible, it must be persistent and it must take it to the streets. Simple letters and e-mails won't accomplish much at all.

A March on Washington would be a good start. The labor movement could help lead and organize it if the Democratic Party won't.

Does anyone have other suggestions on how we could build such a mass movement and what kinds of activities it would engage in to educate and mobilize the public?


------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Advocate Online
February 4, 2005

Fixing Social Security
by Bill Onasch

Bush’s Social Security scam–the boldest attack yet on one of the few social benefits ever won by American workers–would eventually redistribute trillions of dollars from wannabe "owners" still working for bosses to the real owners of society–those employing the wannabe owners.

But bold also implies risk. There is always the chance that, deviating from recent behavior norms, the labor movement might help launch a massive defense of our most sacred benefit. There is even a chance that such a struggle could defeat this attempted grand larceny. That kind of stuff could quickly get out of hand.

Fear of such a backlash is why the bosses and bankers never put all their fragile proverbial eggs in a single vulnerable basket. After all they invented the good cop/bad cop routine. They are ready to "compromise" if need be. Some of us remember the last big compromise on Social Security in the early Eighties.

Because of the inflationary recession left over from the Carter administration, greatly exacerbated by Reagan’s supply side economics, Social Security was in real danger then. Reagan proposed drastic cuts that ran into heated opposition.

But then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sat down with Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill and these two "adversaries" hammered out a "compromise." This 1983 "reform" not only hiked payroll taxes and corralled millions of public sector workers previously outside the Social Security pool; it also raised normal retirement age and set future increases in penalties for "early" retirement–such as I receive. All this was given a relieved blessing by the leadership of the labor movement at the time.

Already we are hearing talk of another bi-partisan compromise to "fix" Social Security. Certainly any such deal would include pushing retirement age back even further and would probably involve downsizing the formula used to calculate benefits. Now that’s a real threat to younger workers–unlike my Wal-Mart sized monthly stipend.

If union leaders and the AARP show an inclination to accept such further gradual erosion of Social Security the bosses may well be willing to take privatization off the table and leave Bush twisting in the wind–just as Reagan had to take one for the gipper in 1983. Some of our leaders may well proclaim such a give-back a "victory"–they are, after all, well experienced with such spin–but rather than "fix" Social Security it would just put future retirees in an unpleasant fix.

Instead of trying to force march workers to toil until the age of seventy–which many are suggesting–our increased productivity should entitle workers who want to retire to go earlier. Some European countries, who have even longer life spans than we, have set age sixty as a normal retirement age.

The timing of Bush’s proposal has nothing to do with any "crisis" in Social Security. By all estimates the present set-up can provide current benefit levels for decades. But Bush, and the class he represents, is on a roll right now. They’ve got us scared of our own shadows looking for terrorists. They’ve framed all discussion around the premise we are poorer and must make sacrifices. They’ve encountered no significant political opposition. Until they get some shove in response they are going to keep pushing, rolling back everything we have won in the past.

This fight is of historic importance not just because of Social Security–as vital as that benefit is–but because all of our benefits, our very living standards, are in mortal danger. Counting on the Democrat politicians to save us is to surrender before the end of the first round. The best we can hope for from them is another give-back "compromise."

If the labor movement is to survive as a real force it will have to stop apologizing for what we have, stop give-backs, stop spinning grave setbacks into proud victories.

We need to honestly take our case to the workplaces and communities, telling the truth about Social Security and those attacking it–both the privateers and the "fixers."

Following the example of the civil rights and Vietnam antiwar movements organized labor should call a March On Washington, and bring hundreds of thousands to the capital to demand "Hands Off Social Security!"

http://www.kclabor.org/fixing_social_security.htm

That takes away one of the most logical fixes: taking the limit up to $120 or $150,000.

Nothing really needs to be "fixed" now. Social Security is not broke and it's just fine until at least 2042. So why the rush?

If there is a problem down the road 20 or 30 years from now one of two things could be done.

1. Increase the income cap on social security taxes as you suggest.

2. Lord forbid, increase the employers, not the workers, contributions into the social security trust fund.

Any ideas on how we can build a successful mass movement to defend social security? I'm convinced that's what it will take. We can't just sit back and hope that Congress will defend us without mass pressure from the public. If we do that we're dead.

will focus on one, only to let two others get by.

Of course, the more proposals that we fight, the more negative we appear to the public.

If the Dems compromise with Bush, they will be aiding and abetting the destruction of Social Security.

The Bush scam would produce $2 trillion in debt in the first 10 years. With that much debt, the Repubs would say that Social Security is destroying the US and must be terminated. All of the monies that We The People put into the SS Trust Fund would be confiscated and used to pay off that debt.

What has Bush touched that hasn't been subsequently totally destroyed?

The Buffalo News
February 5, 2005

"I'm willing to work with anybody, Republican or Democrat or independent, who wants to come in and discuss ways to solve the problem," he told thousands of supporters. "Everything is on the table except raising payroll taxes."

In Florida later in the day, Bush specifically said slowing the rate of growth of future benefits would help solve Social Security's long-term problems.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050205/1028607.asp

---------------------------------------------------------------------


The White House
News Release

THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050204-13.html

Get a Democratic "compromise" that raises the retirement age, or something particularly odious short of privatization.

In 2006, what would be a HUUUGGGGGGE issue for Democrats to campaign on is taken away, just like Iraq in 2004, because Democrats supported it.

No-- We've got to tell our reps NO on every "fix" that comes through this year. NO NO NO NO NO. This could turn the midterm elections right here.

All the more reason why we need to build a huge movement to defend social security. Such a move must be opposed to ALL so-called reforms that will cut benefits or increase the retirement age, not just privatization.

Do you have any suggestions on how we might do that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush: Do anything but raise taxes to help Social Security
Saturday, February 05, 2005
JIM VANDEHEI and MIKE ALLEN
The Washington Post

OMAHA, Neb. - President Bush said Friday that he is willing to do anything except raise payroll taxes to shore up the Social Security system, as the White House moved to overcome strong bipartisan resistance to the president's new plan for individual accounts.

At the Qwest Center here, Bush said he is open to virtually any idea to avoid Social Security shortfalls projected to start late next decade. "I'm willing to work with anybody, Republican or Democrat or independent, who wants to come in and discuss ways to solve the problem," he said. "Everything is on the table except raising payroll taxes."

In Florida later in the day, Bush specifically said slowing the rate of growth of future benefits would help solve Social Security's long-term problems.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/110759854620170.xml

This need to be repeated over and over again especially when people start discussing alternative changes.

They just raised the "trouble" date from 2042 to 2052. Each year they do the recalculation and the trouble date gets pushed out further and further.

It is not broken, no fix required.

LaborTalk for January 26, 2005

Let’s Demonstrate Our Power and Unity
As We Battle Bush on Social Security
By Harry Kelber

While unions debate their differences about the future of the American labor movement, they all agree that the AFL-CIO must become a more influential political force in Washington and state legislatures around the country. President George Bush, by pressing his campaign to privatize Social Security has given them an opportunity to test the power of their political unity.

This is a battle we can win if we pour the same resources into the campaign that we did in the 2004 presidential elections. After so many legislative losses, including the recent defeat on the overtime pay issue, we desperately need a winner to give us momentum for the tough struggles that lie ahead.

If we expect to save Social Security, we won’t do it by repeating the tactics that brought us defeat on the overtime pay issue: sending more than a million e-mails, faxes and phone calls to sway the votes of recalcitrant members of Congress. We can’t win major battles with spitballs.

To win on Social Security, we’ve got to show we’re really angry — and adopt an “in your face” attitude to make the Washington political establishment realize how passionate we are to preserve the federal retirement system. We¹ve got to campaign with the same vigor and commitment that we showed in the 2004 elections. And this time, we don’t have to be bound by the strategists of the Democratic Party.

We had 5,000 staff people deployed in the 2004 election. Can we get 1,000 to mobilize a full-scale campaign across the United States? We distributed 32 million leaflets, then. Can we distribute 10 million, now? How many phone banks can we organize in each city and town to save Social Security? We were able to get 225,000 volunteers to hold one-on-one talks with workers on job sites and in their communities. Can we repeat that unprecedented achievement?

To show that Social Security is as important as we say it is, we should be able to call upon 100,000 workers — union and non-union — to come to Washington to tell President Bush and every member of Congress, as forcefully as we can, to stop undermining a national institution that has provided a safety net for retired Americans for 70 years. We should demand face-to-face meetings with each Senator and Representative and picket those who refuse in their home district.


So what will it be?

http://www.laboreducator.org/bushss.htm

It seems to me that perhaps many, or at least some, on DU would go along with some cuts in social security benefits because they fear enough Democrats in Congress might reach "common ground" with the Republicans to pass such legislation. Or perhaps some people will just remain silent and restrict their opposition to the privatization scheme. It's safe to do that and you won't alienate any Democrats who advocate other kinds of cuts in social security.

I hope I'm wrong.

But the best way to stop that is by building a movement that is against ALL proposed cuts and changes in benefits that will hurt working people and the retired.

How about a million worker March On Washington to defend social security? Just one slogan is necessary. "End The B.S. No Cuts Of Any Kind!" Well, maybe one or two more would be in order.

The more I see these guys back away from the neocons and curl up in a ball, it just makes me wonder if the Democrats in D.C. are really a token fake opposition party and are paid off to act this way. I really do wonder about this sometimes. These neocon jackals never compromised when Clinton was president so why the Hell should the Democrats in the House and Senate be the same way? I see nothing to gain from this.


John

No, no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no,no, no, no, no, changes to SS.

:mad: :grr: :nuke:

I agree.

But already one leading Democratic Senator is calling for sacrifices!


Just check out the websites of Democratic Senators. Many are missing in action. They have not yet commented on the Bush's privatization scheme and some who are against privatization have indicated they are willing to work with Republicans to consider other "reforms" proposed by Bush .... reforms that will cut benefits and/or change eligibility requirements!

Democratic Senator Kent Conrad has gone so far as to call for "sacrifices" by the American people in order to "save" social security! This Senator flew with Bush on Air Force One on his trip to North Dakota.

Senator Conrad is the top ranking Democrat on the Senate subcommittee that oversees Social Security system. He joined with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in calling for unspecified sacrifices. Here is their statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Finding Common Ground on Social Security Reform by Senators Kent Conrad (Democrat, North Dakota) and Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican, South Carolina.

01/05/05

"With a renewed debate over the future of Social Security now underway, Republicans and Democrats alike need to begin by setting aside our differences and focusing on the common ground between us.

As two policymakers -- one from each party -- who have been committed to the well-being of Social Security throughout our careers, we have agreed that the following common principles should guide our deliberations going forward:

First, Social Security must be preserved.

Second, it is also clear that Social Security must be strengthened.

Third, strengthening Social Security will require tough choices and, if done in a responsible manner, can greatly improve our nations fiscal outlook. To address Social Securitys funding challenges, all options should be on the table for discussion.

In 1983, President Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill worked together across party lines to protect Social Security -- setting an example for future generations. We need to do the same thing now.

Both parties have been far too hesitant to ask the American people to make sacrifices for the common good. It is our belief the American people, if asked in a responsible manner, will embrace the hard choices necessary to save Social Security for younger workers and future generations.

It is time to address this problem. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened. But we need to be candid about the costs and willing to make the tough choices that real reform will require. If Republicans and Democrats can agree on this, we can save a vital program for generations to come."

http://conrad.senate.gov/~conrad/releases/04/12/2005105...


If Senator Conrad proposes ending the tax cuts for the rich and increasing the tax on employers to help fund social security I would support that. But, I doubt very much that's what he has in mind when he calls for "sacrifices".

Senator Conrad did say "I've accepted the President's invitation to accompany him to Fargo and I will be there to welcome him. We'll have a chance to discuss Social Security. As I've made clear, there are places where I agree with the President, and there are places I have concern with the President's plan."

So what changes in social security are you and Bush in agreement on Senator Conrad? I'd like to know.


I am against any and all social security cuts proposed by the Bush government and if any Democratic politicians surrender and go along with Bush on any of them I hope we all speak out loud and clear in opposition to their betrayal of seniors.