Student leaders taking a stand on Social Security
Social Security is catching on at the campus level. Today, more than 150 student leaders from all 50 states, the student body presidents of colleges and universities across the country, joined together to make a statement about the importance of Social Security and to take a stand against the large increases in debt and deficits, benefit cuts, and safety-net risks that come with privatization.
As one of the student leaders said in releasing the statement, "We're sick of being marginalized and we're sick of people not listening to us."
The students are distributing the statement and the list of signers in Congress today at hearings; students are also meeting with their own representatives back home later this summer.
The student's efforts were supported by the Student PIRGs and the US Student Association.
Props to all these student leaders for taking a stand. You guys rock.
Social Security is catching on at the campus level. Today, more than 150 student leaders from all 50 states, the student body presidents of colleges and universities across the country, joined together to make a statement about the importance of Social Security and to take a stand against the large increases in debt and deficits, benefit cuts, and safety-net risks that come with privatization.
As one of the student leaders said in releasing the statement, "We're sick of being marginalized and we're sick of people not listening to us."
The students are distributing the statement and the list of signers in Congress today at hearings; students are also meeting with their own representatives back home later this summer.
The student's efforts were supported by the Student PIRGs and the US Student Association.
Props to all these student leaders for taking a stand. You guys rock.
posted by Hans Riemer at 2:25 PM
20 Comments:
Once again, Hans Reimer focuses purely on one side, without addressing the other. It's a real shame how Rock the Vote hired this shill to "represent" us on Social Security.
Just so everyone knows, there's a whole other side to this movement- a group of students who understand this system's finances, and believe that the OPTION to invest in personal accounts is a good idea. You can check THEIR website out at:
http://www.secureourfuture.org
Of particular note is how this group of students manages themselves, and does not rely on other groups to assist them. Therefore, this is the only student organization out there that has its own agenda, instead of shilling for some other group's agenda (you know, like how Rock the Vote is the slave of the AARP).
Hans, you're as dishonest as it gets.
Isn't it possible that these 150 student leaders took the time to understand the issue and made an educated decision about the drawbacks to privatization? Why must they be "shilling" or "dishonest"?
i think that secureourfuture.org isn't being completely forthright about your agenda. what's your endgame? and who suffers in the meantime?
These 150 "student leaders" are backed by progressive organizations that have a clear political agenda. Go ahead, go to their website and check out the two organizations that back them. This is no different from MoveOn.org creating a shadow group to run under, or the Swift Boat Vets changing their name or throwing money to another group to talk trash about John Kerry or something. It's dishonest.
Yes, if you don't support the Bush plan (and instead support the current system), you do not understand the issue. It's that simple. Hans Reimer has, countless times, tried to say that people would be BETTER OFF under the current system than the reform, and that's just not true. I guarantee you right now I know more about Social Security than you do, and I've probably checked many more sources than you have.
The simple fact that you call this "privatization" proves my point. SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT BEING PRIVATIZED. I don't know what it is with you Rock the Vote types, but you seriously need to cut the demagoguery. There is an OPTIONAL PARTIAL PRIVATIZATION portion of this plan, and that's as far as it gets. IT IS A CHOICE.
Now, let us assume that we're going to borrow all the money to pay for personal accounts, instead of getting the financing from creating a Social Security lockbox from now until 2017. That borrowing, according to the Bush administration, is $700 billion. The Democrats say $2 billion. Let's just take the Democrats' number, since I'm surrounded by partisan Democrats here.
$2 billion for the PRAs + eliminating 70% of the trust fund problem (about $5 trillion) through progressive indexing = $2 billion + a remaining $1.5 trillion. That's a total unfunded liability of $3.5 trillion.
Under the current system, there's a $5 trillion funding gap because of the trust fund- the system takes in less money than it needs after 2017 (surely you know this). Therefore, you're saving $1.5 trillion off of the Bush plan, even in its worst case scenario (using DEMOCRATIC numbers, and assuming that PRAs are not phased in slowly like the President wants).
There is no "deficit" argument here. If you deficit hawks are so concerned with the deficit, you'd be the first folks to support reform, as the trust fund liability FAR outreaches any deficit that could be caused by personal accounts.
I agree with the "donut" tax that you were talking about. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is working on a proposal to do just that- but one that combines that with the Bush plan's call for personal accounts. That plan would solve even more of the problem, likely the entire trust fund obligation, and probably a significant chunk of the PRAs as well.
My problem with Rock the Vote is that they're doing nothing more than echoing the AARP/Democratic Party's talking points of "NO PERSONAL ACCOUNTS!!! EVER!!!!", while refusing to present a counterproposal of their own. Personal accounts are not evil, and they do not cause more problems; in fact, it is a perfectly legitimate CHOICE for people to have, as government workers already have that option. It allows people to grow their wealth, should they choose to do so. Those with PRAs would take out less money from the Social Security system, thus saving it money.
It's that simple. I've been advocating your "donut tax" idea for months now- but note how I also support PRAs and the progressive indexing. My problem is that too many people are being blatantly partisan on this, Rock the Vote and Hans Reimer the most out of anyone.
Sure, it's possible they came to the conclusion that a system they probably have never paid into yet is great for this country.
I hear stories about people that really need SS and wonder, "How can so many young people be so calious and narrowminded that they don't want to make the system better?"
If you are compassionate, you would constantly be looking at how to make the system better. If it costs a little to save a ton, then we should do it. All I keep hearing is how much it's going to cost to privatize 2-4% of social security. Give me a break. How much do you think it's going to cost to pay back what's already been pilaged out of the system that's collecting interest every day?
The only thing that I can think of is that Hans hasn't done as much research as he should, or he has commitments to certain purse strings. Either way, I can't believe he has my interest in mind. If I have the OPTION to control a very small portion of my SS funds, then so be it. If you think I'm going to lose in the market, so what? I won't be putting a strain on you. You will still be locked into your so called safety net.
More than likely, I will end up doing better than you, and I think that is the part you can't stand. The insurance portion of SS will be untouched, so that can't be your worry. What is your true worry? Debt. If you don't think the current system will create more debt than transitioning to private accounts, then you have your head in the sand. Why not raise taxes to cover the transition costs, since you love raising taxes to cover the rising costs of the current system?
If you had an idea for solving SS (raising taxes doesn't solve the long-term solvency of the system, so therefore doesn't represent a plan), it would make it easier to believe that you are not opposing privatization for the simple fact that a ignorant, dumb cowboy proposed the changes.
Think about this. If we created a SS system today, do you think it would look anything like what we have now? No way. Could you imagine a politician standing up today saying that he has a plan to help retirees that would basically require 2 workers to pay for the retirement of one retiree? I will tax you 12% with a guarantee that this will have to be increased in the near future. You don't own anything if die before retirement, and oh yeah, if you're a black male, you're basically not included because your average life expectancy is 55.
Yeah right, you wouldn't buy it.
With all the financial stability and knowledge this country has, this is the best we can come up with? No, I don't accept that, and neither should you.
Harry Reid's Nevada constituents, incidentally, support the President's Social Security reform plan.
Click here to check it out.
There are so many things that are debatable. SS is not one of them.
Switching to a private account system is far and away the best proposal on the table.
By the way hans, the whole "medved melt down" is a crock. He is right.
It is NOT privatization. Privatization would be the complete removal of government intervention. Not a government monitored partial investment.
And I hate sound so partisan or closed minded. But truly, if you know the facts, you cannot argue to keep the system as is.
It ravages minorites and the poor who never see the money. (its funny that that uncollected cash doesnt get factored in....hmmm i wonder what our responsible government does with it?)
Its a system so bad, politicians do everything they can to avoid being put in it.
And as for this CAUSTIC stock market. You are simply wrong. The long haul of investment shows that a average of 8% is your return.
Its an absolute fact. If the market dips, you dont cash out.
Its that simple.
The great depression taught us nothing except that occasionally bubbles burst (in that case, visciously because it was COMPLETELY unregulated) and that social programs prolong the agony.
FDR TRIPLED the tax rate on america, and NEVER got us out of the depression. The war effort got us out of the depression. Uniting against an enemy distracted and boosted confidence enough to get the wheels going again.
Plain and simple.
Responsible American is right on with this point:
If you don't think the current system will create more debt than transitioning to private accounts, then you have your head in the sand.
That's the one thing that Rock the Vote, Hans Reimer, and all of his supporters keep on conveniently leaving out. There is no "debt" argument against personal retirement accounts if you people are not going to acknowledge the TRUTH that there is MORE debt under the current system- by at least 5 to 2- than with the Bush plan.
There is simply no "deficit" argument here. I did the math earlier, using the Democratic Party's very own (vastly inflated) numbers, and I STILL showed how the Bush plan saves money. I'm thinking Reimer and many of his shills all prefer to to throw around partisan political propaganda, but completely disregard the mathematical and economic ends of things.
should't they name the group "Students for Higher Taxes" of maybe "Students for Getting Me a Job at the DNC?"
Correction:
hans has not spend many years studying the issue. He probably took a few moments to study the talking points from Move On, et.al. He is an unemployed liberal campaign hack passing the hours until the '06 mid-term elections when he and MTV can once again pimp out a few misinformed students at carefully selected universities (U W, Tulane, Gloria Steinham U).
If you really want to study "primary sources" about SS reform then you need to read the Diamond- Orzag book "Saving Social Security", the National Bureau of Economic Research's "Distributional Aspects of Social Security" and "Administrative Aspects of Social Security" and an absolute must-read is Charles Blahous' (he is Bush's Social Security expert) "Social Security Reform."
Of course you must balance this with reading new media- NO that does not mean reading Krugman's latest drivel in the NYT. And I caution you against reading information from "organizations" unless you balance it or cross examine it. Organizations are staffed by activists and activists are for a cause, not necessarily what is best/ right/ practical.
I wonder why nobody at RTV will respond to the allegation that they are on the AARP's payroll. Could it be that they realize that being exposed as being shills for an ELDER advocacy group might make people realize RTV is not working for the best interest of youth.
I'm from Georgia and I find it funny that of the three major universities in Georgia the one with the most math based program, Georgia Tech, did not sign it. Georgia Tech is engineers and physics majors and these people will know something about economics and interest and such. If this was such a good plan wouldn't the math kids be in on it?
That's because people like Hans don't like math. It makes their brains hurt.
They'd much rather throw around typical drivel that comes from Political Science or Humanities majors, as they're good at doing only one thing: arguing incessantly about something they have no idea about.
I read the link and it seemed to provide no value. In no way did they say what their ideas were to change the system or how they would do it. It seemed like 150 people got together for nothing.
More on the media culpability in the current SS discussion.
The Media's Social Security Deception
Mark Weisbrot
May 18, 2005
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. ( and co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis (2000, University of Chicago Press).
After it was established that that the Bush administration's stated reasons for invading Iraq were false— Iraq's alleged nuclear program, weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda—many journalists, editors and producers felt that the U.S. media had not done its job during the march to war. The New York Times and The Washington Post published articles criticizing their own reporting.
A similar but more candid note from the media—broadcast, cable and print—is in order for their misreporting of President Bush's effort to change Social Security. Here is what an honest confession might look like:
"We apologize for having failed our listeners and readers in our reporting on Social Security. The extent of this failure can be clearly measured by the public's complete misunderstanding of the problem being discussed. A recent New York Times /CBS poll found that 68 percent of Americans under 44 think they won't even get a benefit from Social Security. Even according to President Bush's (Social Security Trustees') numbers, Social Security will always be able to pay a benefit that is higher than what retirees get today. This is after adjusting for inflation, and it is true even if we were to do nothing and allow the Social Security Trust Fund to run out of money.
Where did Americans get the idea that they would get nothing from Social Security? They got it from us: the same place they got the ideas that Iraq was close to producing nuclear weapons and was involved in the massacre of 9/11. One thing we did wrong was to report false or unsubstantiated allegations over and over, without countervailing facts. This makes it easier for politicians to pursue a "big lie" strategy—to deliberately repeat false information until it is accepted as truth.
President Bush can say, as he did recently, "Without changes, this young generation of workers will see a UFO before they see a Social Security check."
This should have the same credibility as the statement, "Elvis Presley is alive; I just talked to him yesterday."
Our second mistake was to leave out or downplay crucial facts. Few Americans know that according to the president's own numbers: (1) Social Security is financially stronger than it has been throughout most of its 70-year history; (2) the whole shortfall over the next 75 years is less than what we fixed in each one of the decades of the '50s, '60s and '80s; (3) 50 years from now, the average real wage will be more than 70 percent higher than today (so workers won't be hurting if they have to pay a little bit more to Social Security) (4) the year 2017—when Social Security payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenue—has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security's solvency.
We encouraged deception about the Social Security Trust Fund by describing the government bonds it holds as "I.O.U.s," and allowing politicians to pretend that defaulting on these bonds was a real possibility. We should have used the Congressional Budget Office's numbers in our reporting, since it is non-partisan; instead we generally reported numbers from the Social Security Trustees, who are partisan (four of six are Bush appointees, and a fifth is pro-privatization). The CBO numbers show Social Security to be financially solvent for the next 47 years. If just this one fact were included in every news report on the Social Security "problem," most people would surely see the whole debate for what it is: a farce.
There were exceptions to these reporting failures, but they were few and far between.
We hope you will forgive our sloppy, careless reporting on Social Security. At least this time, nobody was killed as a result.”
I guess you're referring to the sloppy reporting by newsweek that resulted in the death of 15 people.
those are some interesting numbers.
Something to think about. However, if I gotta make a call on it, im gonna go with the million other articles, facts, and figures that say otherwise.
I would love to see how this anon came up with some of his numbers. Especially the fact that in 50 years the average income will be up and we can afford to pay more in taxes. That must be quite a crystal ball considering all the doom and gloom the dems are predicting on a daily basis. If you were to listen to the dems, incomes are down and they don't see them rising anytime soon.
Also, there is something called inflation.
You managed to put another gem in your post. I would like you to explain point number 4:
"4) the year 2017—when Social Security payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenue—has absolutely nothing to do with Social Security's solvency."
If we are not taking in enough money to pay our obligations, how do you figure that the solvency of the system is not at risk? I know that if I don't take in enough pay from my work to pay all my expenses, then I have a solvency problem.
Please explain, because I might need to give you call if i ever have problems covering my expenses.
Nice try. Your propaganda is up there with Hans. Maybe you are Hans. Who knows?
Yeah, anon must have been an accountant for Enron, "It's no big deal if we're not taking in enough money to meet our obligations, we're the gov't, nobody can arrest us for accounting irregularities."
--->
should't they name the group "Students for Higher Taxes" of maybe "Students for Getting Me a Job at the DNC?"
<---
Hilarity.
I'm sorry, but the more I read this website the more I feel that it has such a liberal bias. I mean, what mostly bothers me is that many young people turn to this web page in order to get information on an issue, and if this person isn't cunning enough to see the bias, he will be spoon-fed a one-sided argument.
On Social Security I will have to admit that I'm not completely sure where I stand on the issue, but I mean, the market isn't this big monster that will throw you into poverty. It actually happens to be the best hedge against inflation, and quite frankly, I think that it is very healthy that young people invest their money in the market, because we all know that social security is not a valid option just by itself. As a matter of fact, the only elders living on the beach houses in Florida, are the one's that invested in the market. That says a lot. Additionally, the majority of people that live on Social Security are are actuallly living below the poverty level, making them become totally dependent on the rigid, and limiting welfare system that is offered by the government.
One problem I do see is that young people, due to lack of interest in personal finance, might make poor financial decisions. But I'm sorry, but to say that the social security system in our country is perfectly well-funded is a bit naive, and all you have to do is go to a minority neughborhood, and speak to the elderly about the "riches" that the government offers them. I mean, I'm greatful, but we cannot depend on the government like our social net, thats why we must actively assess our own future.
Post a Comment
<< Home