The hard sell on benefit cuts.

The Washington Post headline today reads, "BUSH SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN WOULD CUT FUTURE BENEFITS." The USA Today puts it, "BUSH: REIN IN SOCIAL SECURITY."

So, what's the big news? Bush has put some specificity behind the central idea of his Social Security plan. He's brought it out into the clear, put his cards on the table.

You thought that was "personal investment accounts,' right? Wrong. It's benefit cuts for young people and the middle class.

I've been trying to make a very simple point here at this blog. The Administration argues that we can't afford to keep our promise of Social Security's guarantee for the future. When it comes to dividing up the budget, they want to spend the money on other things: tax cuts and the military, in particular.

You may or may not think that these priorities are more important than Social Security, but you should really understand the trade-off that is in play. The Administration just doesn't think the country can afford Social Security. Its very straightforward. They have other priorities.

Now, in a major press conference, designed to get some forward momentum for what has thus far been a particularly unsuccessful bid to win public support for his privatization plan, the President proposed a change in how benefits are calculated that would reduce them dramatically over time.

The approach to cutting benefits would hit everyone who makes more than $20,000 per year. Its a particularly rough hit on the middle class, and the younger you are the worse it is. The average worker would face a benefit cut of 28 percent.

Trying to justify this large cut for younger workers, the Administration makes the point that their plan ensures that "future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than today's seniors."

As we have been saying all along, even if you do nothing to address Social Security and let it go "bankrupt," benefits for in the future will still be larger for young people today than they are for today's seniors.

That's how you market a huge cut in benefits to young people. Tell them they won't get anything because the system is going 'flat bust." Then offer them a package that could leave them worse off than doing nothing at all.

Pretty slick.

The stories of Iraq

Some soldiers enlisted with the military due to patriotism. Some signed up to pay for college. Some signed up to escape rough neighborhoods or Small Town, U.S.A. Some signed up to hunt down bin Laden.

Some soldiers return from their stints in Iraq weary and in need of normalcy and peace. Some come home proud of having removed a brutal dictator from power. Some come home with some combination of weariness and pride. Some come home wounded - or not at all.

Whatever the case may be, the voices and experiences of those young men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world who are the friends, brothers, sisters, cousins, boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands and wives of all of us deserve to be heard.

Over 2,700 people died on American soil in the attacks of September 11. As a result, there was a surge in contacts to military recruiters following 9-11 (though recruitment has waned following the invasion of Iraq). The events the followed have led our military and its troops to Afghanistan (a widely supported war) and Iraq (a war on which the American populace has been split – though the trend is downward with most American currently opposing the war).

Now, over 1,900 coalition soldiers have died in Iraq (1,748) and Afghanistan (216) – nearly all Americans (1,573 in Iraq, 179 in Afghanistan). In addition, at least 12,147 U.S. men and women soldiers have been wounded in Iraq.

Statistics are nice to get a general overview but do little to connect on a personal level and can get lost in context. A recent New York Times article relays the voices and experiences of the Marine Crops company with the highest casualty rate in Iraq. The unit blames the lack of armored vehicles for dozens of unnecessary deaths.

Operation Truth tells the story of an American troop who took a leave of absence from law school to enlist with the Army Reserves because of his love for his country and his desire to prevent another September 11. Though he calls enlisting the “best decision of [his] life,” SPC Richard Murray has returned from Iraq feeling misled and wishing for the safe return of his fellow young American men and women as well as the minimizing of the loss of Iraqi civilian life.

SGT Shawn Wilkens tells his of his experiences in Iraq on a Long Island message board. SGT Wilkens says he believes in the Iraq war. He goes on to say that he believes the troops there are well protected by “state of the art” armor and that precision bombs are minimizing Iraqi civilian casualties. SGT Wilkens also expresses thanks to the Americans who are against the war, whom he still believes has been supportive of the experiences of the soldiers abroad.

As powerful as they may be, the voices of American troops are not the only ones to be heard. The varying voices and experiences of the Iraqi people deserve to be heard as well. We should seek out and listen to the voices of the Iraqis who wish to be free of outside interference and daily warfare. We should also seek out and listen to the voices of the millions of Iraqis who were able to cast ballots in a democratic election for the first time in decades. And we should also seek out and listen to the voices of the friends and families of the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

For more of stories from our troops in Iraq, go to Operation Truth.

--posted by Miles Granderson

To the victors go the spoils

I don't know if anyone reads the comments section on this blog. If you do, you'll notice that we've been targeted by some Angry Young Men who are very unhappy about how much influence we have with the generation. I guess when you have a million people on your email list, you get some enemies, too. On second thought---when it comes to Social Security, you guys are your own worst enemies.

Back to the real world. Inside the halls of Congress today, at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee---as thousands of protesters rallied against privatization outside (drama!)---a guy named Peter Orszag (yay!) told those Senators how and why to fix Social Security without privatization.

One of his suggestions: boost Social Security benefits with money from the special tax that rich kids pay when they inherit more than $7 million from their parents. This is the so-called Estate Tax. Congress is trying to get rid of it.

Orszag's proposal would reform the estate tax and then dedicate the money to Social Security instead of the general fund, adding $1 trillion to Social Security over the next 75 years.

According to Orszag: "For a 20-year-old medium-earning worker today, it could mean avoiding $1,500 per year in benefit reductions."

That's you. That's your $1,500 per year. Your $15,000 per decade.

Obviously, that money would come on top of the hundreds of thousands that you will already receive from Social Security, benefits that aren't going anywhere because they will be paid for by future workers paying the current tax rate. And, as we are always quick to point out, even if we do nothing, benefits will be a lot larger for you than they are for people today.

So! Who's gonna get that paper?

AARP: nine ways to boost Social Security

Our ally and partner AARP outlines nine ways to boost Social Security.

Angry Old Man

There's something I have to report from last week's hearing at the House Financial Services Committee. Former Senator Alan Simpson was on the first panel. I've always admired him---he's a congenial but visceral advocate for his views. Just my style.

But I have never witnessed such a display of Angry Old Man as that day. Simpson said that anyone who doesn't support his views on the future of Social Security is "sick...grotesque". When former Rep. Barbara Kennelly said that seniors today don't care if politicians promise they won't cut current benefits---because they oppose privatization for their grandkids---Simpson angrily replied that these people "don't care" about their kids or grandkids, that they're too busy wearing their jeans around their ankles and listening to "Snoopy snoop poopy dogg" for anyone to care about them.

Nice.

Rock the Vote U sucK

They never called us. But The Sun, a tabloid paper in the UK, has shamelessly ripped us off. They have launched "Rock the Vote UK." Normally, with an appropriate agreement between us, we'd be for it. But the way they're going about it.... makes me feel like I need to take a shower.

They just grabbed our logo from our site---including our trademark, I would add!, and slapped a "UK" on there... used the faces of celebs that have endorsed our campaign as though they were backing theirs...

When you land on the main election coverage page, you see a big promotion for "Trevor Kavanagh" which the paper seems to think is their version of Ron Brownstein or something... he wrote the original post on their campaign so I'm going to assume he's the guy. Trevor, you're no Ron Brownstein! More like a Jeff Gannon.

There's an election in the UK on May 5. We hope all the young people turn out and vote. But if you're from the UK and you're on our website wondering our voter registration tool isn't working for you... send an email to rockthevote@the-sun.co.uk and complain!

Hans Testifies on Social Security!

Our very own Hans Riemer, who many you know from his contributions to this blog, testified before the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services this morning.

The hearing, entitled "Generations Working Together: Financial Literacy and Social Security Reform," highlighted the need for honest discussion about controlling our retirement security. Hans presented our views on social security reform and answered questions.

"As an advocate for our one million members and supporters," Hans testified, "Rock the Vote believes that all Americans can learn how to invest for their own future. At the same time, we also believe that everyone should have a basic safeguard to protect them if they are unsuccessful with their personal investments. That safeguard, which is Social Security, should be sufficient to protect a middle class standard of living while at the same time lifting low income workers out of poverty."

Check out the rest of Hans' testimony here.

Goodbye, Marla

A friend of mine and of Rock the Vote, a young woman named Marla Ruzicka, who led a humanitarian effort in Iraq, has been killed by a car bomb in Baghdad.

Very sad.

Read more about her organization, Civic Worldwide.

Its not about money, its about priorities

A lot of young people have bought into this idea that Social Security "won't be there for them." (Okay, just about everyone has.)

But this is complete fiction. We are being misled by people who just don't want to prioritize our needs.

First of all, the way that Social Security works: current workers pay in to the fund, which goes to current retirees. So the only way there "won't be any money" for you when its your turn is if there is nobody working. Obviously that is never going to happen. There will always be people paying into the system. Therefore there will always be money there to pay your benefits.

But wait, you might say, I heard that there's going to be so many boomers that they'll swamp the system. Or I heard that there are too few workers to support all those retirees. Or I heard that Congress steals the money. Yada yada yada.

Well, according to the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget office, based on the current contribution, Social Security is about 75%-80% funded for our entire lifetimes and 100% funded for the next 40-50 years.

That's not a system that is bankrupt, like some taco stand going out of business. Social Security is not some ATM that's going to stop spitting out cash just when you get to the front of the line. It doesn't work that way.

The challenge in front of us is, how do we get from 75-80% up to 100%? Because that's the goal: 100% for everyone. Keep the guarantee. And of course that takes money.

Is there enough money? Of course there is---its just a question of priorities.

Today, the priorities for Congress are 1. Tax cuts and 2. Military spending. That's where the money is going.

Let's take tax cuts first. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the recently passed Bush tax cut costs nearly than 3 times as much money as is needed to pay 100% of Social Security benefits for 75 years.

On the second point, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, sustaining current U.S. defense policies would require much more taxpayer money than fulling paying Social Security benefits.

Now, you can be for the tax cuts or against them, for U.S. defense policies or against them. That's not the point.

The point is, if anyone says "there's not enough money to pay Social Security," or "Social Security is running out of money," what is really going on is that they want to spend the money on something else.

See, there is enough money in Washington to pay your Social Security benefits. Its a matter of priorities.

Would you favor raising the contribution rate in order to get to 100%? Or using some of the money from the general budget that is presently going to other priorities? Or doing something else? There's no shortage of options. Check out http://www.nasi.org for more information on what you could do get to 100%.

But whatever you do, don't get played by believing you'll get nothing out of the system....because people who think they have nothing to lose will fall for anything.

Rock the Vote: Political Power for Young People.

Here's what they think about ya

We're enjoying a surge in traffic to our blog right now, along with an explosion of comments, which is cool. You dudes keep hitting at us because the only way this issue is going to take off is if there's a fight about it. But since not everyone may have time to read through the comments on the blog, I thought I'd excerpt a few snippets of what has been posted lately.

Reading through them, it occurs to me that maybe this helps explain why all the cool kids oppose privatization.

--

"If your people at RTV really cared about people you would be working to end S.S. as we know it."

"It's ashame "all" of the "cool" kids oppose the privatization of social security. I would love to be able to control the money I earn and not have the government spend it on whatever they want."

"The proper Title for this post would be "all the lazy, irresponsible kids oppose privatization." Then it could go on to describe how if you're lazy and irresponsible, you would naturally oppose anyone else being able to control their future and have a comfortable retirement because it would just thrust your laziness and irresponsibility into the spotlight."

"Urge your representatives to get rid of social security completely so you can receive your entire paycheck."

"I don't know about you guys, but "all the cool kids" in my school were not really the people I would rely on for financial advice, maybe where to get wasted on the weekend and pick-up chicks."

"you are an absolute moron! we all klnow that the SS is a bust! to fix it, lets NOT pay into it at all! i would love to keep my money for me. why do i have to pay for some one elses problem of being to damn lazy to get up and work to get paid! i work hard for MY money and i dont wnat to give it away to some one that did not work for it."

"By they way, people who oppose individual choice are socialists."

Rock the Vote in Jeopardy?

Nope, that's ON Jeopardy!

Rock the Vote will be a question (or is that an answer in the form of a question?) on everyone's favorite quiz show this Friday, April 8th. Check your local listings!

UPDATE: Check out our own little clip of the show right here! Rock the Vote on Jeopardy

You mean there's something more important than March Madness?

“I worry about the detachment and the lack of concern. We’re not pieces on a chessboard or a video game; we're real people.”
- Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth and Iraq war veteran.

Perhaps it is because after September 11, anything goes. Perhaps it is because the over 1,500 dead American troops is still far less than the 58,000 that died in Vietnam. Whatever the reason, Rieckhoff is disturbingly correct in his observation.

People seem oddly unconcerned with the war in Iraq and the death and casualties of American troops (and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians). Somehow, while troops are still fighting and dying, the news of Iraq has slipped to page A-12 and B-4 of your local newspaper. And our lives continue uninterrupted. We can watch March Madness and worry about losses in our office pools (this author is betting on Illinois) instead of losses of lives in Tikrit and Baghdad.

In a sense, part of what makes America such a special nation is our freedom to go about our daily lives without the worry and fear that accompanies daily life for so many other people in so many other parts of the world. Many of us felt that freedom disturbed by the acts of September 11 and in the days after wanted nothing more than to hasten the return of the days when we could again go about our American ease of life.

And thankfully, by and large we have returned to that comfortable feeling of American ease and freedom. But, perhaps in the process of doing so, we have forgotten about our American (and Iraqi) brothers and sisters abroad who are not today afforded the same.

So when you sit down on your sofa or neighborhood barstool to watch this weekend's Final Four basketball coverage and see the typical shot of troops watching the games via satellite in Iraq, take a moment to think of what they will be doing tomorrow. And realize that of the faces of those troops you see so thrilled to have a much needed rest from their worry and un-ease, the madness in Iraq will ensure that some of them will never again set eyes upon their baby girls, hug their mothers, or kiss their wives or husbands.

- posted by Miles Granderson