Partisan politics loom large in the Social Security debate. For example, you hear a lot about how Republicans have a "we win even if we lose" approach to Social Security.
The idea is that Republicans assume that even if they lose older voters and their plan goes down in flames, they will win back young voters and, more importantly, change perceptions among young people about the Democratic party as locked in old ways and defending old ideas.
Its a reasonable theory, and I would presume it is based largely on polls that show when you ask young people if they want to invest their own Social Security money, a decent share will say "yes." Of course after they find out about the debt, cuts and safety net risks that come with privatization, support plunges.
In any event, at some point the theory has to be put to the test. In my view, the "do you want to invest" polling factoids are a lot less important than "do you support the President's plan" type questions. If their strategy is going to work, it has to start showing up in the polls soon. So far, I'm not seeing it. Below is the latest CBS poll by age. Only 32% of young people approve of the President's handling of Social Security.
BUSH’S HANDLING OF SOCIAL SECURITY – DEMOGRAPHICS:
Approve Disapprove
All 26% 62
Age 18-29 32% 55
Age 30-44 28% 58
Age 45-64 25% 67
65 and older 18% 68
The idea is that Republicans assume that even if they lose older voters and their plan goes down in flames, they will win back young voters and, more importantly, change perceptions among young people about the Democratic party as locked in old ways and defending old ideas.
Its a reasonable theory, and I would presume it is based largely on polls that show when you ask young people if they want to invest their own Social Security money, a decent share will say "yes." Of course after they find out about the debt, cuts and safety net risks that come with privatization, support plunges.
In any event, at some point the theory has to be put to the test. In my view, the "do you want to invest" polling factoids are a lot less important than "do you support the President's plan" type questions. If their strategy is going to work, it has to start showing up in the polls soon. So far, I'm not seeing it. Below is the latest CBS poll by age. Only 32% of young people approve of the President's handling of Social Security.
BUSH’S HANDLING OF SOCIAL SECURITY – DEMOGRAPHICS:
Approve Disapprove
All 26% 62
Age 18-29 32% 55
Age 30-44 28% 58
Age 45-64 25% 67
65 and older 18% 68
posted by Hans Riemer at 10:24 AM
29 Comments:
47% of those polled support investing some of the social security taxes. Why is that not in the blog? Hans, you prove to be a propagandist with every post.
Of course, this poll doesn't break down the 47% by age, because it would show that a high majority of those under 30 would support it. Well, at least there is no evidence yet that the poll is made up, but we are talking about CBS.
You know who which age group would be against it? That's right, the over 60 crowd. None other than the AARP crowd. I still don't see how RTV could team up with the AARP when the constituents of these groups couldn't differ more.
More Propaganda from Hans Riemer and RTV. Whoopi!!!
Anonymous - actually, you are leaving out an important fact, which is that many young people would like to do away with Social Security all together because they have been convinced they will not get a dime. Since the first retirees and disabled people received their checks though, they have been pleasantly surprised to see that it actually works. That's why older people have always supported it more than young people. You can read more in this vein here.
Older people are more for the system because they have been trained to think their retirement is entitled to them from their employer or gov't. They grew up with social security and company pensions. Younger people today are growing up with independence. We invest in 401k plans that weren't available back then. We save more for our retirement and when we see that social security money being taken from us every paycheck, wonder if we can change that. We wonder why do even have to give the money away in the first place? If this is such a free country, why can't I keep that money and invest it in a personal account? Why does the gov't get to take it away at gun-point and I can't say anything about it?
Also, retirement isn't a right, it is earned. If you don't have the money to retire you keep on working. It's that simple.
This blatant attempt by the Bushies to pit the young against the old is obviously failing miserably, thank God.
I just can't believe he's still out there flogging it to his hand-picked audiences.
There were a great gaffe (probably more of a Freudian slip) at a recent appearance, as recorded on the whitehouse.gov (not .org) website:
"Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"
I love the way the whitehouse website adds the laughter and applause lines.
How the Wealthy Rip Off the Social Security System
Nathan Newman points out that amid all the rhetoric on Social Security, the Bush Treasury Department yesterday admitted that the wealthy are regularly ripping off the system.
Specifically, Treasury's J. Russell George, who is the inspector general for tax administration, testified that high-income citizens were using the "S Corporation" designation to officially pay themselves low/no salaries to escape social security tax. They then declare all that income as "S Corporation" profit.
How much is this scam costing Americans? According to George, in the 2000 tax year, the owners of 36,000 single-shareholder 'S' corporations received no salaries at all despite each having operating profits of more than $100,000. As a result, there were no employment taxes paid on $13.2 billion in profits.
That's billions being stolen each year from the Social Security system as President Bush runs around the country saying we need to cut ordinary people's benefits. Then again, what do we expect? Bush, after all, let us know he has no interest in making people pay their fair share. As he said flippantly, trying to make people pay their fair share was wasted effort because "rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/05/how-wealthy-rip-off-social-security.html
You liberals just put your personal hatred of Bush aside. And stick to the debate. Bush is not the source to all your problems. Apparently to a liberal, everything that goes wrong in Washington is Bush's fault. Anything that Bush proposes to fix must be some kind of gov't conspiracy to give money to rich people. Come on people with personal accounts, you'll control your own money. It's YOUR money! Why don't you want it.
Erik, how about a flat tax or a consumption tax so that no one can avoid taxes? I bet you're not for that.
Can you blame people for trying to avoid this bloated tax system we have?
Funny, Erik. Some how I am stealing money that has been taken from me by the government. You know, it happens to be my money before the gov't takes it from me
No I'm for progressive Taxation like Adam Smith(the father of modern capitilist thought) explains in his book "Wealth of Nations". The preminate book on capitalism.
If you are for wanting to control your own money, instead of preaching about privitization of SS, why not payroll tax cuts? Grover Norquist said they are off the table because they would only benefit the majority of Americans.
As for the anony who says that he is stealing money. No you aren't rich or welathy so I'm not talking about you. That's the problem with most conservatives they think they are wealthy.
Freedom, privacy, opportunity, prosperity, open two-way communication, cooperation and community-building, trust, and honesty are values that we should get and deserve from our government. These aren't the values preached by conservatives who want you to fear and hate your government. Hate the governmnet that our founding fathers built for us.
Taxation is paying your dues or membership for having the opportunities to work and do business in our Free society that is America. If you join a conutry club or a community center you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the free-weights but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise it won't be maintained and will fall apart. People who avoid taxes, like corporations that move to Bermuda, are not paying their dues to their country. It is patriotic to be a taxpayer. It is traiterous to desert our country and not pay your dues, especially in a time of war.
Perhaps Bill Gates, Sr. said it best. In arguing to keep the inheritance tax, he pointed out that he and Bill Jr. did not invent the internet. they just used it-to make billions. there is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the Judicial system, where 9/10ths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayers investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men. The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back. Do you believe that those that came before us and after us should foot the bill for the me generation?
If you want to pay less taxes then you must demand that the wealthy pay more. Our tax system was fair once when it was progressive. But the burden has been shifted away from wealth and work is being taxed in it's place.
erik - corporations don't pay taxes, you can continue to fool yourself by thinking that they do, but I find it odd that someone who has strongly argued that governments are not inanimate objects - that they are made up of people - can not see that corporations do not pay taxes. Corporate taxes are shouldered by the consumer and employees in the form of higher costs for products and services and lower wages and benefits. So if in your view of taxation we should burden the corporations with more taxes because they have money then your plan calls for an economic and employment disaster.
Only the Fair Tax system is truly fair and equitable for all income brackets. Take a look:
http://www.fairtax.org
Yes corporations do pay taxes. Read our tax code. irs.gov
Even conservatives don't beleive in the national sales tax. Here's what the freepers have to say. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a385f0eb24f36.htm
You've proven that you have been propagated again. Keep drinking the snake oil.
Erik, nice post:
"That's the problem with most conservatives they think they are wealthy."
I think it is the democrats that keep setting an income level as a way of determining who is wealthy and who isn't. I beleive John Kerry was setting that at $200000. I know you may not make that much, but it still is not what someone who makes $200000 would call wealthy.
Hans, you really need to stop citing polls as your basis for arguing against Social Security reform. Why do I say that? Simple: polls on Social Security swing in every single direction, depending on how questions are asked.
You can ask people whether they approve "Bush's handling" of anything- hell, even, say, chocolate chip cookies- and you'd get AT LEAST 50% disapproving. Why? Because when you stick the name "Bush" in there, partisan animosity becomes involved- the same kind of animosity we see in all of your blatantly partisan posts here.
Note that most polls have people supporting reform by huge margins, with the youth especially supporting the choice to invest in personal accounts. If you did polls on whether young people even WANT Social Security anymore, you'd get a majority (or at least a plurality) preferring to get that 12.4% of their taxes back and having Social Security ended. Why? Because we're well aware of the fact that this system is a total screwjob.
Of course, propagandists like Hans exist to try to cover that up as much as possible. I wonder if, 7 years ago when President Clinton's own people considered personal accounts for Social Security, if Hans would have gone off on all of these blatantly partisan rants.
Likely not. A hack is a hack, after all.
erik - tell me how corporations shoulder the full tax burden placed upon them? Explain, if you will, how in your mind corporations gladly pay taxes out of profits instead of passing those taxes (which are considered part of any organization's overhead) onto consumers of their products and/or services and their employees.
I'd like to hear how you would run a company, because out here in the real world us business owners don't go around saying, "gee, I'd love to pay those taxes out of my company's profits and/or my own paycheck as that organization's proprietor."
Here is an economic lesson to you and the rest of our generation who don't run their own business:
Lets start with a problem: As the employer and maker of widgets I find myself in a position where I need additional help, and to keep this simple we'll say its one additional employee I'm looking to hire. Now, my budget allows for up to $50,000 to hire a new employee, but do I go out and post an ad for someone at a rate of $50,000 a year? Hell no! What I do is figure if I can afford $50,000 to hire someone how much will I need to pay in payroll taxes, benefits and additional corporate taxes based on a projected productivity increase. Now lets say after figuring this out I'll need to pay about $10,000 in taxes to hire that employee, so I then go out and place an ad for someone who's willing to take the job at a rate of $40,000 a year.
Now, tell me how the corporation payed those taxes? Answer? It didn't, the employee got less in their paycheck. Another way to pay for corporate taxes is through a price increase in the cost of goods and services, but many times that can put a corporation out of competition, so when that option doesn't work guess what happens? Lay offs! Gee, isn't corporate taxes just the goose that laid the golden egg?
You fail to understand that businesses are in business to make money, not to give you a cushy job or free medical care. When corporations are faced with higher taxes they just don't cut their shareholders out or cut their own paychecks (unless they absolutely have to), instead they work out the taxes into their budgets as explained above.
You obviously don't have a clue how businesses are run and I ask you to go talk to a successful businessman in your area to get the facts straight.
Yet more good polling news for the pro-choice, pro-reform people.
Social Security plan backed in new poll
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 31, 2005
Most likely voters continue to support President Bush's proposal to let younger workers invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes through personal accounts, a new survey finds.
The poll by independent pollster John Zogby for the Cato Institute, which is being released today, found that when voters understood the benefits of personal investment accounts, including a better financial rate of return than the current system, the Bush plan was supported by 52 percent of Americans and opposed by 40 percent.
"The thing that is compelling in this poll is that this is the response you get when you use a positive approach on Social Security reform," Mr. Zogby said. "If you use the 'Chicken Little, sky-is-falling' approach, then voters understand that something has to be done, but don't see the connection between personal accounts and fundamental reform of Social Security."
"There are a large number of voters, especially those under 50, who don't think they are getting the best possible deal from Social Security," he said.
As in past surveys on the president's personal-accounts proposal, strongest support comes from younger voters under age 30, who embrace the idea by a margin of 66 percent to 23 percent.
Support declines somewhat among voters between 30 and 50, with 58 percent in favor versus 37 percent who oppose it.
Voters over 65 oppose personal accounts 52 percent to 40 percent and those over 70 oppose them by 55 percent to 38 percent.
The survey also contained a warning for the Democrats about how their opposition to any reform of the Social Security system is playing with the electorate.
"By an overwhelming 70-22 percent margin, voters believe that opponents of President Bush's proposals for Social Security reform have an obligation to put out their own plan for reforming the program," including 55 percent of Democratic voters, Mr. Zogby said in a report of his findings.
Among supporters, the most popular reason for supporting private accounts was, "It's my money; I should control it," Mr. Zogby said. "This was true for every group except African-Americans, who chose inheritability as their biggest reason for supporting accounts."
The poll's results suggested that Mr. Bush's proposal would be much more popular if he focused "on the points in this poll," Mr. Zogby said in an interview.
"Nobody can understand or relate to the system's insolvency in 2043. But it wins a majority when the issue is raised as a matter of choice and as a positive opportunity," he said. "If it's pitted as just Social Security reform because it is becoming insolvent, that's not enough."
Among the poll's other findings:
•Support was strongest (57 percent to 36 percent) in the "red states" that Mr. Bush carried in his 2004 re-election. Support split more evenly (48 percent to 44 percent) in the Democratic "blue states" that Sen. John Kerry won.
•Voters by 62 percent to 30 percent remained deeply skeptical about Social Security's promise to pay future benefits. Skepticism was highest among younger voters, with more than 70 percent saying they doubted that the system would be able to pay their benefits when they reached retirement age.
The poll of 1,006 likely voters was conducted May 23-25 and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
In case you were wondering, these are the President's principles for reforming Social Security:
The principles:
1. VOLUNTARY personal accounts for younger workers.
2. No changes for those over 55.
3. One personal account option would be entirely made up of bonds.
4. The personal accounts would look like the Thrift Savings Plans (which are conservative mixes of stocks and bonds).
5. No tax hikes that would hurt the economy.
6. If someone has worked and paid into the system throughout their lives, they will not retire in poverty (progressive indexing).
7. No band-aid solutions.
8. Any change would be gradual, so younger workers would have time to prepare and plan for what is to come.
9. To protect older workers from sudden downturns right before retirement, there would be lifecycle funds, which rely more heavily on bonds and less on stocks the closer to retirement one gets.
That you didn't know the President's reform principles proves just how absent the reporting has been on this.
I think this is very interesting that not one of these postings even adress the issue of the widowed, disabled,or dependants of disableded these are the people who will be truley effected by the privitization of social security. Who is going to protect these people. you are so concerend with which one of you has more money or which compaines aren't paying their taxes but if you could all just stop and think about the fact that there are people who will be suffering then maybe we could help those who need our help.
Manda
Down with SS!
The widowed, disabled, and dependants of disableded need help--maybe some of them! Be a kind individual and help those that need help; but don't be an ass and force your neighbor to donate to your charities.
For all the Rock the Vote anti soc. sec. reform People!... Why would anyone choose to invest for their retirement in a plan that guarantees that you will pay more and get less? John F. Kennedy even said Social Security needed a 200 percent reform, and that was in 1960. . . WILLisms.com has some graphs and excellent material on Social Security! I would like to suggest anyone who is interested in Soc.Sec...Saving it or reforming it! ...Take a look at WILLisms.com and what he has to say! If you still feel the same after reading his material, I will say great!...
Manda, Manda, Manda. What do you think this is all about? The current system at some point will have to be changed in order to save it. No one argues this point. The argument I have heard is when this should be done. To suggest that allowing young workers to divert 2-4% of their SS taxes to a private account would somehow screw the widowed, disabled,or dependants of disableded is just ridiculous. The fact that I support a plan that will keep some form of SS in existence for the future to come seems far from incompassionate.
Anyway, explain to me how these groups of people you listed would negatively be affected if young workers had the option to divert 2-4% of their SS taxes into a private account. Keep in mind, if you don't want to participate in the optional private accounts, you don't have to. It's completely voluntary.
For anyone who didn't watch "Meet the Press" with Howard Dean a couple of weekends ago, you missed how scary the democratic party has become. The DNC is supporting a self-proclaimed socialist for the senate in Vermont to replace Jim Jeffords. The exchange is below for all to read. The reason given for supporting a socialist is that he will vote with the Dems on most issues. How disturbing. Dean admitting that Democratic policies are in line with socialists. Watch out america!!!
"Russert caught the one-time presidential candidate off guard when he asked about his recent endorsement of self-professed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders to replace retiring Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords. "Well, first of all, he's not a socialist, really," Dean protested. When Russert noted that Sanders had acknowledged in writing: "Outside or in the House, I am a Democratic socialist," Dean offered meekly, "Well, a Democratic socialist – all right, we're talking about words here."
Russert also revealed that until recently Dean had fiercely opposed Sanders.
"In 1996 you said you would never have voted for Bernie Sanders," Russert said. "Instead, you opted in recent years to leave the ballot blank."
"Bernie and I have had our difficulties over the years," Dean said. "We've had our strong disagreements."
"We're fighting for the future of America, and a Bernie Sanders in the United States Senate is going to be a whole lot better than somebody who will vote to confirm right-wing judges, somebody who will vote to undo minority rights, somebody who will vote to kill Social Security. This is a battle where personalities and differences have to be put aside, and we have to do what's right for America."
Just in case anyone hasn't seen this (it was posted above too, but Hans's blatant partisan selectiveness with polls deserves this to be re-posted):
Social Security plan backed in new poll
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 31, 2005
Most likely voters continue to support President Bush's proposal to let younger workers invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes through personal accounts, a new survey finds.
The poll by independent pollster John Zogby for the Cato Institute, which is being released today, found that when voters understood the benefits of personal investment accounts, including a better financial rate of return than the current system, the Bush plan was supported by 52 percent of Americans and opposed by 40 percent.
"The thing that is compelling in this poll is that this is the response you get when you use a positive approach on Social Security reform," Mr. Zogby said. "If you use the 'Chicken Little, sky-is-falling' approach, then voters understand that something has to be done, but don't see the connection between personal accounts and fundamental reform of Social Security."
"There are a large number of voters, especially those under 50, who don't think they are getting the best possible deal from Social Security," he said.
As in past surveys on the president's personal-accounts proposal, strongest support comes from younger voters under age 30, who embrace the idea by a margin of 66 percent to 23 percent.
Support declines somewhat among voters between 30 and 50, with 58 percent in favor versus 37 percent who oppose it.
Voters over 65 oppose personal accounts 52 percent to 40 percent and those over 70 oppose them by 55 percent to 38 percent.
The survey also contained a warning for the Democrats about how their opposition to any reform of the Social Security system is playing with the electorate.
"By an overwhelming 70-22 percent margin, voters believe that opponents of President Bush's proposals for Social Security reform have an obligation to put out their own plan for reforming the program," including 55 percent of Democratic voters, Mr. Zogby said in a report of his findings.
Among supporters, the most popular reason for supporting private accounts was, "It's my money; I should control it," Mr. Zogby said. "This was true for every group except African-Americans, who chose inheritability as their biggest reason for supporting accounts."
The poll's results suggested that Mr. Bush's proposal would be much more popular if he focused "on the points in this poll," Mr. Zogby said in an interview.
"Nobody can understand or relate to the system's insolvency in 2043. But it wins a majority when the issue is raised as a matter of choice and as a positive opportunity," he said. "If it's pitted as just Social Security reform because it is becoming insolvent, that's not enough."
Among the poll's other findings:
•Support was strongest (57 percent to 36 percent) in the "red states" that Mr. Bush carried in his 2004 re-election. Support split more evenly (48 percent to 44 percent) in the Democratic "blue states" that Sen. John Kerry won.
•Voters by 62 percent to 30 percent remained deeply skeptical about Social Security's promise to pay future benefits. Skepticism was highest among younger voters, with more than 70 percent saying they doubted that the system would be able to pay their benefits when they reached retirement age.
The poll of 1,006 likely voters was conducted May 23-25 and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
Hans, you have been PWN3D.
Manda,
To give you an answer on your question about the disabled, etc...
the reason nobody is talking about it is because, like those over 55, the disability part of Social Security will NOT CHANGE AT ALL under the President's reform principles.
No, really. That portion of Social Security will remain intact. Thus, why would anyone comment on it?
Will,
We hear that a lot. "Disability and survivors will be protected."
Actually, this is very unlikely. At the very least, exempting those programs from the cuts proposed in the benefit formula would require very substantial new funds---which haven't ever been proposed by advocates of privatization.
The President's Commission in 2001 is a great example. They said that they would protect SI/DI programs. But then they proposed cuts that would affect those benefits without suggesting how much money would be needed, or how to find it, to exempt those benefits from the cuts.
Therefore, I think there's very little reason to believe those programs will actually be protected.
May 11,2005
“President Bush's preferred approach for Social Security would mean smaller survivor benefits for middle and upper-income children and widows than they are now promised, a top administration official said Wednesday.” [Espo, AP, 5/11/05] http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3178337
January 16, 2005
“And he said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization. [Washington Post, 1/16/05] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12450-2005Jan15.html
April 4, 2004
"Allen Abney, a White House spokesman, said the administration plans no changes in disability or child survivor benefits. But he acknowledged that guaranteed benefits would be lower for workers who invest in personal accounts and for their adult survivors if they die early." [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/19/04] http://www.ohioroundtable.org/news/newsindividual.cfm?news_ID=354&issuecode=taxes
Stop the fear mongering, Hans.
Even as the above posted quotes by anonymous state, there will be no change to disability benefits. Now, survivor's benefits will be based on whatever changes are made with indexing and what not, and whether the person chose a PRA (in which case the PRA money would likely make up- or surpass- what SS could have paid out).
There is absolutely zero proof or reasoning that disability insurance would be changed. It seems like you really just want to turn everything into a "scare the crap out of the public" talking point. That's a shame, and it is dishonest.
irresponsible american,
It's easy to create an alternate life for yourself via the internet but if you are such a successful businessman than how do make money investing all your time on this website? It's funny that a successful businessman doesn't know who Adam Smith is and would call him a left wing loony.
Sean Foushee, I've already answered your problem. These are the mebership fees of doing business in America. If your mythlogical businessman doesn't want to pay taxes he can go set up shop and citizenship in Sudan or the Congo. There he will have no security, no roadways, no justice system, no commerce department, no treasury, no federal reserve, no american banking system, and mainly no american customers. I can continue this list endlessly. We can also look to two points in american history when laiseez faire economics reigned. The gilded age and the 20's. Now go look up what low taxes for the wealthy did to the wages of earners during this period. The american middle class blossomed and america became the world economic superpower after wwii. Do a little thinking and reading for yourself as opposed to repeating right wing talking point. Read "Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Philips. Is he a "liberal" too?
I understand completely why business are in business. Unfortunately Bush seems to differ in his opinion of why he was giving tax cuts to corporations. His statement that tax cuts will create jobs and create investment and economic growth may be nice thing to wish for but they are devoid of any facts or basis in reality. The bureau of labor statistics and office of budget and managaement statistics differ on when growth and jobs are created in correlation with tax cuts or tax hikes for the wealthy. But I'm sure you doubt such "liberal" institutions as the bls and obm. And no you can find the information yourself. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home