All the cool kids oppose privatization

A new poll from the Pew Center shows support for private accounts among young people has plummeted recently. (Ahem...ahem...)

To quote the Pew Center, "In particular, people under age 30 who have heard a lot about the proposal are more than twice as likely as their less engaged peers to oppose the idea (45% vs.19%)."

So: the more young people hear about privatization, the less they like it. Hmm...sounds familiar! Oh, let's see: When young people learn about the cuts, debt and risk that comes with private accounts---and the pro-privatization politicians can't hide it forever---they're like, don't even try it!

It is a recipe for a political backlash. Long assumed as the only demographic that would support private accounts, when young people turn on them, its ovah.

Now, "support for private accounts" is a finicky number you have to watch carefully, since the point is not so much private accounts as much as what it takes to get them: cuts, debt, and risk. But the big point here is that the young people who are more educated and more engaged---a.k.a., the cool kids, the influencers---are more opposed.

The Associated Press story about the poll is below. The political backlash is forthcoming.

Associated Press: Youth support for private accounts falls

Poll: Reduced support for Social Security accounts among young adults

WASHINGTON (AP) — Support for President Bush's plan to create personal Social Security retirement accounts which might include stocks or mutual funds has dropped over the last month among Americans under age 30, according to a poll released Thursday.

Young adults have been the strongest supporters of the proposal for months. Support among those 18-29 dipped from seven in 10 to just under half, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. A quarter of young adults now say they're not sure how they feel about such personal accounts.

The poll found that just over four in 10, 44%, of all those polled, support creation of the accounts, down from 54% in December, while 40% are opposed.

The amount of support for the plan differs widely depending on how the question is worded.

When poll questions mention that people will have a reduced guaranteed benefit with the accounts, the support dips into the 30s with a majority opposing the plan. When the question emphasizes only the positive aspects of accounts, some GOP polls have found a majority supporting accounts.

Polls find a healthy majority agree that Social Security faces long-range problems.

The Pew poll of 1,505 adults was taken March 17-21 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Take that and rewind it back

We catch a lot of flak here at this blog from advocates for privatization. The little hellions seem to have a lot of time on their hands. Actually, suggesting that they are young is probably generous since in all likelihood most of them are balding. But it's fun to see and, hey, more argument is better than less argument. Our goal is to see this issue take off among the youth and the only way that's going to happen is if people are really getting into it.

So in the spirit of the blogosphere, I thought I'd just take a minute to point out how wrong you all are, and how right we are, and you're just a bunch of liars, and we're telling the truth.

Here's a good example. A little while back, the privatizers went ballistic about a poll that we conducted with the AARP, attempting to figure out whether young people care more about private accounts than they do about benefit cuts or debt increases, etc, since that has been quite a sticking point for private accounts plans.

The headline for our press release about the survey said, "POLL OF YOUNG ADULTS FINDS SUPPORT FOR PRIVATE ACCOUNTS PLUMMETS IN FACE OF BENEFIT CUTS, BORROWING." Right away, the wingers were saying this was a "push poll" and all that.

So we were pleased to see CNN report yesterday in the Morning Grind, "Bush and his allies may think they're making progress, but it's more complicated than that. Several recent polls also show that support plummets once folks are asked about possible trade-offs -- the federal borrowing required by such accounts, which even Bush agrees would do nothing to make Social Security solvent, the roller-coaster nature of the stock market, or the possible benefit cuts or tax hikes necessitated to keep the existing program in the black."

Isn't that, like, exactly what we said?

Then, the subhead for our press release said, "THE MORE YOUNG PEOPLE LEARN ABOUT PRIVATE ACCOUNTS, THE LESS THEY LIKE THEM." We thought that summed things up pretty nicely, but again the Enemies of Justice said this was "misleading" and whatnot.

So it was again with some satifaction that we read the lead paragraph for a story in the Washington Post which said, "Barely a third of the public approves of the way President Bush is dealing with Social Security and a majority says the more they hear about Bush's plan to reform the giant retirement system, the less they like it, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."

Clearly, we got the Post's attention. They turned our claim into a question, tested its veracity and found it to be pleasing.

Oh, and, by the way, in that Washington Post poll....only 40% of 18-29 year olds said they support the Bush Social Security plan.

Right.

Who the other guys are in bed with

Did you know that AARP is not really primarily concerned with Social Security? Neither did we. After all, the AARP partnered with us at Rock the Vote to defend Social Security as we know it.

But ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, it seems Rock the Vote has been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, the wool has been pulled over our eyes. We know this now because USA Next - the same reputable organization that brought us the Swift Boat Veterans ads attacking former presidential candidate John Kerry's service in Vietnam - says AARP's real agenda is anti-war and pro-gay marriage.

Not that we would have a problem with that agenda - we do not care who marries who, so long as they get Social Security. But here we were just assuming that the organization formerly known as the American Association of Retired People would be concerned with retirement. Go figure.

All kidding aside, of course AARP holds Social Security as a primary concern. Any insinuation otherwise is simply preposterous. It's the AARP for goodness sake.

Unfortunately, this new ad from USA Next is just the tip of the iceberg in what is expected be a very a bitter barrage of attack ads and lies coming from pro-privatization advocates. These are the same people telling you their plan is good for you.

But we at Rock the Vote intend to make sure that young people do not let these attack ads stop us from losing the forest in the trees. Unlike those who want you to believe Social Security will self-destruct if we do not kill it first, we have the facts on our side. So rather than attack the privatization backers with some sort of crazy claim that they hate gay people or something like that, we will simply continue to display the facts. Facts like, under the expected proposal to privatize Social Security:

• guaranteed benefits will be cut significantly;
• the transition to privatization will skyrocket the national debt that our generation will inherit by trillions;
• Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security as a safety net insurance system to keep older Americans financially above water and independent - not as a risky investment system;
• those who are most likely to benefit from a private account investment system are the rich (who need a retirement safety net the least).

So as you see, we do not need to throw low blows - the facts hit hard enough.

For more information on the USA Next attach ads and a healthy dose of Social Security humor (always a sure laugh), check out the Daily Show clip "Anti-Social Behavior."

posted by Miles Granderson

The "Third Rail"

There is a popular cliche about Social Security: it is the electric "third rail" of politics. In other words, for politicans, trying to cut or get rid of Social Security is like grabbing hold of the third rail on the subway. You get fried.

Historically, politicians who would cut Social Security get to stay home after the next election because someone else is going back to Washington in their place, someone who understands that Americans Love Social Security.

At Rock the Vote, we consider the military draft to be the "third rail" of politics for young people. The draft was a huge part of the 2004 presidential election and any politician who would think about bringing back the draft will have to grapple with the fact that young people stormed the polls on this issue--and could do it again.

The military draft issue really took off in 2004 after Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) called for a national dialogue on the topic. Appearing on NBC’s Today Show in Spring of 2004, Sen. Hagel raised the possibility of renewing the military draft, saying, “It’s unfair to ask only a few people to bear the burden of fighting and dying.” He added that all Americans should “share the sacrifice” of protecting our nation.

We admire Chuck Hagel for having the courage to be honest about what he wants and what it might cost US. It takes courage to call for sacrifice, and Senator Hagel's stance sparked a debate that made politics real for young people.

So now Senator Hagel has grabbed another third rail, and is calling for young people to make a different sacrifice. As part of his plan for privatization of Social Security, he's calling for raising the retirement age so that you can't collect full Social Security benefits until you are 68.

Now, most of us think of retirement as something that you do at age 65. But here is something we bet you do not know. The last time our representatives sat down at the table to change Social Security, they raised OUR retirement age to 67.

Just as with the potential military draft, we think there is a better alternative. There's enough money in Washington to pay Social Security benefits down the road but some politicians want to spend it on other priorities. Today, that is Iraq, or tax cuts. Tomorrow, it will be something else. That's how it works.

We don't have to resort to raising the retirement age even higher than 67. We need the politicians to make economic security for our generation a priority when they make the decisions. That's what Rock the Vote is all about.

But still, Senator Hagel, we appreciate you for being upfront with us, and putting your cards on the table.

Don't hold it against us that Social Security privitazation is a bad idea

If I told you that you have a beautiful body would you hold it against me?

While that may seem like a harmless and quite charming compliment at first glance, it can also be a clever way to tell a woman that you would like to press against her in an inappropriate manner.

You see, it is all how you pose the question that determines the response you will get. (Certainly, "you're hot, can I press against you?" would never qualify as harmless or charming - and could result in a black eye).

This same question form logic applies to polls. A new CBS News/New York Times Poll found that a majority of people think Social Security privatization is a bad idea, but 43% do think it is a good idea when simply asked, "is allowing people to invest their Social Security taxes a good idea?" Meanwhile, that same poll also found that only 22% think privatization is a good idea if it means a reduction in guaranteed benefits. That is exactly the thing - privatization does mean a reduction in guaranteed benefits. Even proponents cede this basic fact.

It depends on how you ask the question and which question(s) you ask (or do not ask). This is very important to keep in mind when you hear statistics and public opinion polls on Social Security reform. When questions only provide half the information with loaded questions like, "would you like to be able to invest your own Social Security money in private accounts?," most polls still find that the American public does not want privatization - but it is close due to the charming nature of the question. But when the question puts all the information on the table, public opinion is clear - we do not want any plan that reduces guaranteed benefits. The CBS News/New York Times Poll reflects this as does the recent poll sponsored by Rock the Vote, AARP, and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (See blog post "Generations Unite!" February, 10 2005).

So, do not be fooled by seemingly-sexy private account come on lines. Social Security privatization is like that girl or guy you met at the bar last night who looks a lot different in the morning when the sun is shining in and the makeup is off.

And it seems that more and more Americans are seeing privitazation in the buff. The CBS News/New York Times Poll showed that the general trend is that support for privitization is declining.

posted by Miles Granderson

If only it was the NFL that wanted to draft me

To many young Americans - with only their parents' Vietnam-era stories for guidance - the idea of a draft might seem far-fetched and improbable. Unfortunately it is not quite as improbable as we think and wish.

Last month, this blog reported that a group of high influence conservative scholars were pressing for the re-implementation of the civilian draft to supply the necessary manpower to sustain the war in Iraq and effectuate further missions in the Middle East and other potential problem areas. ("Can’t afford an Escalade? No worries, you may be rolling in a Humvee in no time." February 1, 2005)

Now, an influential leading liberal publication, the Washington Monthly, is also advocating a possible reinstatement of the civilian draft. The article points out an obvious fact recognized by Liberal and Conservative alike. The military is currently at or near its limit with the current operations in Iraq. Even if you are of the opinion that we should not be in Iraq, you still must accept that we are; and the possibility remains real that we may require more troops for various reasons in the near future.

The article reviews a series of possible alternatives to conscription, but none of which seems likely to succeed. Realigning the military to better fit the current military climate and doctrines only goes so far. Ultimately, in order to sustain current policies, an increase in the number of troops is necessary. And of course, since we have been in Iraq it has been and will continue to be very difficult to increase or even maintain the number of volunteers entering the military.

This numerical reality is why Rock the Vote has been and will continue to be so vigilant about the prospect of draft reinstatement in any form.

We want you to understand how the game really works. The intellectuals lay the groundwork. When the policymakers run out of options within their current paradigm, they start casting about for alternatives. Presto: all the arguments have been laid out, people have thought it through, and here's a nice solution, siting on the shelf.

It is worth pointing out that there is a notable distinguishing factor between this proposal and the drafts of the past. This draft would be in an altered form whereby conscripts would be given a choice of military or service-based duty with entities such as Americorps. The idea is that some would choose the military and others would choose alternatives such as military policing and homeland security posts at U.S. ports, thus freeing up traditional volunteer military forces to concentrate on combat-related duties.

While some would say this proposal puts the draft in a potentially more palatable form - if it walks like a draft and quacks like a draft, it ain't a duck.

The Washington Monthly is not alone in liberal circles in supporting a return of the draft. Last year, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York introduced a bill for reinstatement. Rangel introduced the bill at least in part to bring attention to the reality of war and the socioeconomic disparity of the volunteer military.

Can you imagine having mandatory service after high school, whether in the military or in a community organization? How would that really work? Would kids get thrown in jail for ducking out?

Some say this would ignite a renewal of national pride. We think it might ignite riots in the streets. But what do you think?

Don't let the intellectuals do all the talking.

posted by Miles Granderson

Show me the money

By Mark Weisbrot
Center for Economic and Policy Research

President Bush is waving the carrot of private Social Security accounts in front of millions of Americans who, perhaps too young to remember what happened to stocks five years ago, still think they are going to get rich quick in the stock market.

If you could just take some of that money that Social Security drains out of your paycheck every week, he says, and put it in a private account where you could invest in stocks, how much better off you would be when you retire!

Or would you? This is a case where it really helps to read the fine print. Although President Bush hasn't announced a comprehensive plan, he did have a "senior White House official" spill some details of the plan just before his State of the Union address.

One of the details: the money that will go into the private account isn't really yours. At the end of your working career you will have to pay it all back to the government. Plus interest: at the rate of U.S. Treasury notes.

The difference between what you made in your private account and what you have to pay back, with interest, is your "profit" -- or loss. But that's not the end of the story. There are administrative costs that will reduce your accumulation by another 5 percent (according to the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security). Or possibly a lot more: in a typical private 401 (k) account it's about 3 times that much.

You're still not home free. The President's plan will require you to convert some or all of your accumulated sum to a lifetime annual payment. But the cost of this conversion is not cheap: in the private sector it is 10-20 percent of accumulated savings; if the government does it maybe it can be kept to 5 percent.

Now let's do the numbers: say you are a 27 year-old worker with average wages when the plan takes effect for you in 2011. Assume that you put the maximum allotted amount into the private account. Let's also assume that the administrative costs, and the cost of converting the lump sum to an annual payment are the cheapest imaginable.

When you retire after 40 years, your combined benefit from the private account and the traditional Social Security system will be $1371 per month. This compares to $2127 that the current Social Security program, if left alone, has promised to pay.

Supporters of privatization would reply that the system can't pay all promised benefits. If absolutely nothing is done to increase Social Security's revenue -- a very remote possibility -- then benefits will be cut by about 24 percent in 2053. But even then, the monthly benefit in the above example would be $1,625 -- still 19 percent better than in the privatization scheme.

Interestingly, when the government takes back the money that it loaned you, it doesn't come out of the private account that it went into. Rather, it is deducted from the benefit that you receive from the traditional Social Security program. This will create the illusion that most of your benefits come from the private account -- rather than from the traditional system. This indicates that the people who designed this privatization scheme want to undermine support for the traditional Social Security system -- so as to get rid of Social Security as we know it altogether.

In the mean time, privatization won't make many dreams come true. The next time you hear someone telling you what a great deal it is, just tell them: show me the money.

Rock the Vote raises a voice in the Bay Area

[Editors note: The following note describes work by Kemble K. Pope, Rock the Vote’s street team coordinator for the Western U.S. Kemble joined three town hall forums yesterday with members of Congress in the Bay Area to talk about the future of Social Security. Get involved: sign up on our volunteer page.]


Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) was so excited about the enthusiastic crowd joining Rock the Vote rep Kemble Pope to chant, "There is no crisis!,” that she asked them to yell it out two more times. Speaking to overflow crowds, Rep. Woolsey was flanked by Rock The Vote and AARP to tell her constituents why it is important for ALL Americans, young and old alike, to protect Social Security from privatization.

The Marin Independent Journal reported: "Repeat after me, 'There is no crisis,'" said Kemble Pope of Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan political action group for young people. "It's just a scare tactic so we will give up what's rightfully ours - a secure future."

Kemble was pleased to see Rep. Woolsey pledge numerous times to protect and strengthen Social Security for young people and to help defeat any attempt at dismantling the country's most popular and successful program. Taking the offensive, Rep Woolsey agreed with Rock The Vote's stance that private investment is absolutely necessary, but only in addition to the safety net of Social Security. Citing the need for our country to respect savings, not debt, the Congresswoman also floated her idea of a progressive program wherein the federal government would match additional retirement investments for all wage earners in addition to Social Security. Mad props to Rep. Lynn Woolsey for Rockin' the Vote every day!

Why should young people care about Social Security? It embodies the promise of an America that values human interest over wealth. Social Security is the promise to protect our grandparents from the ravages of poverty. Social Security is the promise to assist the survivors of American workers: widows, widowers, and children. Social Security is the promise to assist disabled Americans. Social Security is part of the social contract that our grandparents and great-grandparents pledged that after a lifetime of work all American families deserve the dignity of a roof over their head and food on their table.

- Kemble Pope, Rock the Vote Western Regional Coordinator

A little history of Rock the Vote and "boxers-or-briefs"

President Clinton has said that he owes his election in 1992 to young voters. We tend to agree. That was Rock the Vote's first election, coming just two years after our founding during a peak moment of the censorship wars. MTV opened their airwaves to a Rock the Vote PSA campaign, forever branding Rock the Vote and driving millions of young people to the polls in the process.

So, some have credited Rock the Vote indirectly with electing Bill Clinton. Now Jonathan Alter has also credited us, again indirectly, with his demise. Nonpartisan to the end!

Alter has some genuine insight here, having been a reporter for MTV in 1992. Despite this dubious origin (jokes, jokes) he is now a well respected columnist and MSNBC talking head. He has a nice piece that neatly ties up a little history: the late Hunter S. Thompson, Rock the Vote, and Bill Clinton.

Although Alter doesn't quite say it directly, it would appear the now famous/infamous "boxers-or-briefs" question posed by one Laetitia Thompson to President Clinton in 1994 at a Rock the Vote event broadcast on MTV was actually channeled by Tabitha Soren from an experience Alter had involving Hunter S. Thompson (no relation). If you haven't read Hunter Thompson yet, you should do it pronto, but know that the guy was totally crazy and his life was self-destructive on an epic scale, sort of like a 67 year long episode of Jackass.

So anyway, there's an insinuation to Alter's story that if he hadn't gotten drunk with Thompson in a bar one night, Clinton would have never been asked whether he wore boxers or briefs...and perhaps that was the butterfly-flapping-its-wings incident that resulted in Clinton's impeachment and the election of George W. Bush. Or at least aptly described a turning point.

As for the origin of "boxers-or-briefs," I'll have to check with the aforementioned questioner Laetisha Thompson...or, as i call her, Tisha. She's my cousin! Go figure. My grandmother married her grandfather not too long after that whole thing went down. Boy, does she have a piece of history.

And there you have it. A little Rock the Vote story, full of randomness.