Democrats hope to appeal to young Americans with selection of new party chairman

Recently, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said that the Democrats would have to have a “death wish” to nominate Howard Dean as their new Party Chair.

Well, as they say, you either get busy livin’ or get busy dyin’. The former Vermont Governor and Presidential hopeful Howard Dean is the new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Normally party chairs are not well-known and do not attract much mainstream attention. But that was before “Dean the Scream.” Dean is best known for two things: (1) injecting much needed energy into the Democratic Party (particularly among young Americans) through grassroots and Internet-based campaigning and (2) ending his post Iowa Caucus concession speech by screaming like a school girl on placebo ecstasy pills at an Aaron Carter concert.

Dean, unlike John Kerry and most of the recent Democratic Party establishment, is an unapologetic Democrat. One of his most successful lines during the primary, swiped from the late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), was that he represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." This is the reason Dean’s pre-primary season presidential campaign garnered grassroots support. Liberal Americans, particularly young liberals, were ripe for someone to take them to a higher ground.

In his DNC acceptance speech, Dean claimed that the Democratic Party is the party for “young Americans looking for a government that speaks to them.” In the past the Democratic Party held a clear majority among young voters. But the political climate has changed. Though Democrats remain in the lead among young voters, the Republican Party has been extremely effective in recent years at increasing its support from almost all sectors of American society. Incoming Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman, a brilliant strategist who is the real Karl Rove behind Karl Rove, is sure to keep up the march.

Whether the choice of Dean was wise for the Democrats remains to be seen. Newt Gingrich may be right in that Dean may prove just the polarizing force to help the Republican Party maintain or even increase its recent dominance of their left-wing arch rivals.

But Dean did get off to good start in his acceptance speech as far as Rock the Vote is concerned, as he vowed opposition to any plan that would end Social Security as we know it and leave young people without a safety net.

And you know how Rock the Vote feels about Social Security – We “Heart” Social Security. And we’re going to take the message to Iowa, and Arizona, and Florida, and Maine, and Illinois, and South Carolina, and Louisiana, “Yeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!”

posted by Miles Granderson

Its all about YOU

Today's New York Times has a very revealing article about how the benefit cuts that come with private accounts plans would affect young people. You've got to read this thing.

The article talks about a certain benefit cut that has a lot of support from the politicians in Washington, particularly the Big Dog at the White House. This benefit cut is the main idea they are putting forward for how to "save money" in Social Security. Saving money in this case is political speak for taking money out of your pocket.

A lot of people are asking us, Why is Rock the Vote taking on Social Security? Do you have an agenda?

The answer is YES, we have an agenda: protecting your wallet when the ax starts swinging on Social Security! You stand to lose thousands of dollars. You stand to have a lower standard of living when you get older. You stand to have no real secure foundation for your investments.

We want whatever happens to be FAIR, and we do not think this is fair. At all.

And we're glad that organizations like the AARP agree with us on this. That's going to help out, a lot.

Some key quotes from the article:

--
"To show how a switch would affect people, Mr. Soto plugged assumptions into a basic framework set forth in 2001 by Mr. Bush's panel on Social Security. His findings are estimates, and things could turn out differently. But in general, he found that people who are over 45 today would feel the change only mildly, while younger people would find the system greatly changed by the time they retired. The guaranteed portion of future benefits for younger workers would effectively be much smaller, leaving them to rely more heavily on their investment accounts. But even with solid investment gains, their combined benefit would in most cases be considerably less than what the current system promises... Younger people would be unlikely to win back their losses because price indexing is so powerful."
--

Did you notice the part where it said, "even with solid investment gains" you still lose money on the deal?

Now, look, if you want to invest your own Social Security money so bad that you're willing to reduce your standard of living, more power to you. Just don't come knocking on my door when you can't buy your drugs.

One more thing. This huge cut in benefits applies to everyone. Whether you want to invest your own money or not. The investment is voluntary but the cuts are mandatory. Got it?

Good.

Tell your friends. We can stop this.

A solution that is worse than the problem

President Bush recently concluded a post-State of the Union five state tour to promote his plan to privatize Social Security. An MSNBC.com article detailing the tour's first stop noted that Bush "admits his plan does not fix Social Security."

The President would almost certainly refute this assertion. However, the article is correct in that the Bush plan calls for actually cutting Social Security benefits. This hardly seems like a fix by any definition of which Rock the Vote is aware.

Proponents of the plan would be quick to retort that in exchange for reduced traditional Social Security benefits, privatized personal accounts will be available to supplement.

This sounds good in theory. The stock market gets great returns, right? Of course it does.

Unless the stock market crashes. But, how often does that happen? We haven’t had a recession in three years!

Or unless you make a bad investment. But, that would never happen to us - we have learned a lot from Giovanni Ribisi in "Boiler Room" and Michael Douglas in "Wall Street."

The point is personal accounts do sound sexy at first. But Franklin Roosevelt was not aiming for sex appeal, he was going for a stable safety net for retirement - something a private accounts plan does not provide.

But wait, it gets worse. Private accounts will sink the nation into even deeper debt. Vice President Cheney even admitted to Fox News that the transition costs to the new plan would cost trillions during its first decade – this despite all that “fuzzy math” we warned you about....

And that does not even sound good in theory. Deficit spending is not sexy.

Generations Unite!

As you probably noticed on our home page, young and old have united! Rock the Vote and AARP have joined together to make sure you get paid the Social Security benefits that you deserve, and to prevent the kinds of cuts in benefits for young people that have been floated by advocates of privatization. Its good to have the AARP on your side.

A recent poll sponsored by Rock the Vote, AARP and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that most Americans support repairing the current system, not replacing it with a privatized system. It further shows that young voters (18 to 39 yrs old), like most Americans, like private accounts but not if it means large cuts in Social Security benefits or massive government borrowing. Of course, those are the "little details" of private accounts plans that you never hear about.

This new poll is noteworthy - not just because we co-sponsored it - since the President is trying to win public backing from his plan, and especially from you - young people.

A recent Newsweek article detailing our campaign noted that in a Newsweek poll 75% of voters under 35 believe we are facing a Social Security "crisis." But even though young people are afraid that they will not receive full benefits if something is not done, a whopping 73 percent of young voters want government protection should a privatized plan prove unsucessful.

Unfortunately, with Social Security, like anything else, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

With Social Security, you get a foundation of security to protect you while you try to invest for success with your 401(k)s and IRAs. Without Social Security, you're on your own, and there's no going back.

The numbers show, Americans - young and old alike - are worried that private accounts plans that cause large cuts in Social Security benefits will not ensure security for our generation.

There is so much inter-generational harmony in the air, maybe we an even get those Old White Men in the Virginia legislature to lay off their proposal to criminalize wearing low slung pants that show underwear. We love it when politicians try to legislate fashion. They're so in the know.

Come on Virginia, hiphop fashion is the wave of the future. Stop staring at that little piece of lace protruding from the low cut Levis on those UVA co-eds.

Update: Word is that the Virginia Senate has dropped the plan... See! They can't mess with us.

Is this what he meant by “fuzzy math?”

President Bush used much of Tuesday night’s State of the Union address to champion his Social Security privatization plan. The President repeated his past claims that by 2042 the system would be "exhausted and bankrupt".

As we have reported in the past, the truth is that the Congressional Budget Office says Social Security can pay out the current full benefit rates until 2052 (2042 if you use the Social Security Administration’s numbers) and 80% of the current rates thereafter. It seems as though we have a bit of a discrepancy.

The hope of privatization supporters is to scare the public, particularly young Americans, into fearing that if something is not drastically changed, our generation will grow old in poverty. Its a lot easier to talk people into giving something up if they don't think they're going to get it in the first place.

That's why we think its so important for you to understand the real financial situation. Anyone who really thinks they are going to get to get nothing out of Social Security is going to get ripped off! The politicians are running a game on you.

There are good questions regarding how much of a change is needed. But first, it may be best to pose the question of whether the Bush plan, drastic as it may be, will improve or harm our generation’s future. Let us examine.

Social Security Administration numbers crunchers estimate that under the Bush plan, Social Security benefits will drop to 20% of pre-retirement earnings by 2075 – that number is 42% today. That means your basic guarantee only covers 20% of what you earned while you were working. And it continues to fall after that.

The Bush plan would tie benefits to prices rather than to wages as the current system does. Since wages rise faster than prices (creating a continued rise in standard of living), this would result in a relatively decreased standard of living for our generation when we retire, and for every succeeding generation.

Proponents argue that private investment will yield greater returns than public insurance. Yet, the privatized pension system in Chile, which the Bush administration holds up as a model, has left many of its participants in worse economic positions than they would have been with a traditional social security-type system. The best you can say about it is that its a gamble.

The Bush Administration would like the equation to be this simple: An uncertain future for Social Security equals need for change. Private is better than public.

But if it were that simple, MIT would offer a course in Fuzzy Math.

-Miles Granderson

Can’t afford an Escalade? No worries, you may be rolling in a Humvee in no time.

Remember when Rock the Vote warned you to be vigilant against the possibility of reinstatement of the draft? Remember when you thought to yourself, “I hear you Rock the Vote, but come on, that will never happen in this day and age?” Well, we're starting to hear some new rumbles from the murky depths below.

During the presidential election, Rock the Vote and young Americans brought this issue to the forefront and forced politicians of both parties, including President Bush, to pledge their opposition to a renewed civilian draft. Unfortunately, despite these bipartisan pledges and commitments, re-instatement of the draft is still a possibility that is very much alive.
The Project for a New American Democracy (PNAC), a Neo-Conservative think tank composed of militaristic bigwigs and Bush Administration advisors, sent a letter to Congress on Friday all-but urging the government to reinstate the draft.

Before you blow off PNAC as just another Washington activist group, you should take note that PNAC’s membership includes members of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, some of the White House’s closest advisors, and even a member of President Clinton’s National Security Council staff. In fact, the PNAC’s pre-9/11 policy statement “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is widely believed to be the catalyst of the current U.S. strategies regarding Iraq and the Middle East, including the overthrow of Sadam Hussein.

In other words, PNAC has clout.

Furthermore, PNAC is not alone in considering draft re-instatement. Even the current military leadership in Iraq is beginning to urge a need for more troops than the present “all-volunteer” military can support, this according to the ardently right wing Washington Times. As we told the world back in the heat of the election, the possibility of reinstating the draft has even been officially discussed by members of Secretary of State Rumsfeld’s staff.

The bottom line is our military is already stretched too thin as it is. Not enough new volunteers are enlisting. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have no end in sight. And the possibilities of new wars in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere still loom.

You do the math. More war equals need for more troops. Need for more troops equals increased possibility of a draft (regardless of what the politicians say).

But Rock the Vote does have President Bush and other politicians from both sides of the aisle on record saying they will not support a draft. It is up to us, young Americans who this topic affects the most, to hold them to their word.

-- Miles Granderson