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.
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.
posted by Hans Riemer at 5:41 PM
5 Comments:
OMG Reimer, you are so intellectually irresponsible! Surely RtV can afford to hire someone who has some small degree of knowledge about SS to write on the subject, can't they?
Raising the retirement age for SS has NOTHING to do with private accounts. Even the most out-of-touch economists like Peter Orszag and Paul Krugman (not to mention RtV's own blog) acknowledges that, if the program's financing structure isn't changed, SS benefits will need to be cut by 20% to sustain the program for current generations (and will have to be cut further to sustain it for future generations). The most likely way to do this is raising the retirement age.
So, Reimer, let me get this straight. Current retirees and near retirees paid way lower tax rates into SS than current young people. Current retirees and near retirees have the highest level of benefits in the history of the program (and just got a nice boost to their Medicare programs courtesy of a financially irresponsible Bush administration). Current retirees and near retirees REFUSE to have anyone touch their benefits, even though they horribly underfunded Social Security during their working years. And, to support the current retirees and near retirees, today's young people and their children will have to pay even higher FICA taxes AND have significant benefit cuts.
I don't know Reimer's age, but I'm guessing he's demonstrating the validity of the rule that young people shouldn't trust anyone over 40.
Dude, youre wasting your time debating Riemer. He used to work for 2030, a lobbying group for old people who want higher benefits and want to make young people pay more Social Security and Medicare taxes to pay for it. Riemer's just doing what hes paid for -- and hes not paid for representing us.
I must agree with Mr. Riemer with regards to Senator Hagel's courage in addressing the structural problems facing Social Security and our generation. Since he is so quick to castigate the Senator for his courage, I would like for Mr. Riemer to tell us "what Rock the Vote is all about" by proposing his own solution to the problems facing Social Security, if he will even admit there are any. If you have spent any time on this site and read the comments, you will quickly realize that Riemer and Rock the Vote do not speak for this generation and have an uphill battle if they think that we will allow them to leave us high and dry in our retirement.
Social Security was never designed to be a retirement program but just a supplement to a retirement plan.
Social Security has created generations of Americans who have become dependent on a government system that is not a responsibility of government. Retirement planning is a personal responsibility and anyone under the age of 30 who is planning on retiring on Social Security is extremely irresponsible -- do you honestly believe that a 20 year-old should spend the next 47 years without investing in their own retirement in some non-Social Security system?? That's ridiculous.
The privatization of Social Security means improved freedom. Right now, money is taken out of our checks against our will and then invested in a system as politicians see fit. That, my friend, is abuse of power. I want to put my money where I see fit.
Finally, the privatization of Social Security means freeing up funds now being used by the government and putting them into the economy. This means more money in the private sector for things like innovation (e.g. better medicines, technology).
How anyone under the age of 30 can support the current system or any form of it completely baffles me. It's a view I expect from those wanting a hand-out but not from anyone looking out for the best interests of *our* generation.
Kiki says "People who support privatization are just plain selfish."
Acutally, it is people like the AARP who oppose private accounts that are selfish. Since AARP members will not be affected by privatzation, why oppose it? It would only benefit the younger generation while not having any affect at all on current or near retirees.
She then goes on to say "Social Security is a risk-free promise to people not as lucky as you and me."
Not risk free? By the time I retire, there will be no money left in social security. The government spent it all. Since I have no legal right to the money, I will have to depend on the politicians in the future to decide how much money I'll be able to collect and at what age Ican retire. What kind of guarantee is that? With personal accounts, the money is mine. I don't have to rely on government for the money. If I die before I retire, it will belong to my children rather than the government. If preferring to rely on myself rather than the whims of politicians for the welfare of myself and my children is selfish, I guess I am. I prefer to call it prudent.
She then says "To me there should be 4 guarentees is life: you are born, you die, you pay taxes and you deserve to receive social security."
Social security is not guaranteed. Private accounts that you control are.
Kiki then shows her ignorance of the stock market by saying "The market is just too risky for people who are relying on their social security check."
Over every 10 year period, including the great depression and the more recent mini-crashes, the stock market has out-earned the miniscule 1.5% interest paid by social security. Over it's lifetime, the stock market has averaged around 10% per year, and well managed mutual funds average more than 12%. Risky is allowing the government to take your money and relying on them to tell you when and how you can receive it.
Again she shows her ignorance by saying "And when it comes to "freedom" in private accounts. The presidents plan has certain stocks and bonds already picked out. You will not have the choice to pick what percent of money you want in stocks or bonds. They don't want to make it too risky and they don't want you to constantly moving your money around which actually leads to higher returns."
Part if this is not true at all. The President has yet to define a plan. Just a basic outline of options that he would like to see. Any plans out there are pure speculation. The Thrift savings plan he mentioned, which is what US government employees, including Congress, have, several mixtures of mutual funds and bonds. You can chose which of these to invest in, so there is a choice. Some are more conservative and have more bonds while others are more speculative and have more stocks. As you get closer to retirement, you should become more conservative.
As for moving your money around, it MIGHT lead to higher returns if you are lucky enough to catch the stocks at the right time, but more often lead to poorer returns.
Finally she concludes that "Social Security does need to be strengthen but not torn apart!"
However, she offers no way to strentghen it. Social Security will be bankrupt in 17 years. Yes, if you have no savings and owe more than you make, you are bankrupt. Increasing the cap would mean that you would also have to increase payouts. It might help, but not much. The only options that would extend (not guarantee which is not possible) the solvency are to increase the retirement age, reduce benefits, or, most likely, both.
What private accounts do is 1) guarantee that you will have money to live on when you retire (and more money than you would get from the current social security system), and 2) have something to leave your children when you die. This latter benefit is particularly important to the lower income portion of the population.
Post a Comment
<< Home