"We’ll have to take on the special interests. We’ll have to be straight with the American people. And we’ll have to fight for a secure retirement for working people when the fight gets hard – and that’s precisely what I’ll do. Because retirement security for all Americans is worth fighting for.”
So says Senator Obama, who I think deserves a lot of credit for taking on Social Security. Obama has also done an excellent job reaching out to young voters -- just ask Jo and Evan, who camped out to see the Obama/Oprah show in NH -- and it will be a shame if his student supporters in Iowa and elsewhere don't back their candidate in the coming weeks. I don't mean to suggest that Obama is the best candidate (S4 isn't allowed to endorse candidates), nor would I argue that Obama's plan for Social Security is the right one for the future of our country.
But I do think our generation should show appreciation for Obama's recognition that Social Security is indeed facing a crisis. Even those who do not support Obama for president should come to the candidate's defense when, for example, he is accused of using Republican talking points in discussing Social Security's projected shortfall.
Those who do support Obama should go even further to help their candidate. The best way to do this, of course, is to vote in an upcoming primary or to caucus.
Let's think for a minute about what happens if Obama does not get the Democratic nomination. First, there is a risk that pundits will ascribe the senator's failure to his willingness to address Social Security. Given that Paul Krugman has already written about the poor strategical implications of discussing retirement security, it doesn't take much creativity to imagine an instance in which someone points to Social Security as what went wrong in the Obama campaign.
You'll remember that people tried to do this when Santorum lost his seat in the Senate, even though most of us realized there was a bit more to the election results than that. Particularly those of us who watched Santorum debate the issue with Casey, who sounded as though he had just heard about the New Deal.
What will be closer to the truth is if someone points out that it wasn't Social Security that hurt Obama (again, making the assumption that Obama does not get the nomination), but rather his specific plan for reform. Considering the overwhelming support of our generation for personal retirement accounts, it is odd that Obama's plan does not include any elements of ownership or investment.
Bigger than all of this stuff about Social Security, though, is a second point that the talking heads will make if Obama is not the nominee, which is that young people don't vote. The Wall Street Journal made this point last week, and one can only hope that the obnoxious tone they struck was purposeful.
All of us at S4 have seen how much young people do care about the issues and how much of an impact we can make by working together, and I hope that every eligible member of our generation -- no matter which candidate he or she supports -- participates in an upcoming primary or caucus.
S4 launched Policy or Politics today, an online game today that lets players make a virtual run at the White House by answering financial questions from a crowd of voters.
As our press release explains, Policy or Politics: Financial Edition puts users on the spot about financial challenges that threaten the future of our country. Specifically, the site helps young voters understand that Medicare, Congressional overspending, and related issues all affect our retirement security.
In the game, players are faced with five financial questions which will change regularly between now and the November election. Many of the game questions are similar to those already posed to Republican and Democratic candidates by Students for Saving Social Security, a project of Secure Our Future.
Think you should be the next president? Visit www.policyorpolitics.com and see how well you can do!
Last week, students at Susquehanna University in PA held a "WAKE UP to Social Security Reform" event on their campus. They provided breakfast (coffee, hot chocolate, donuts and bagels) to fellow students, encouraging them to "wake up" and realize all the problems facing Social Security for our generation.
As you can see from the picture, we also gave students some info so they could read up on the issue of reform. We then asked students who agreed that our elected leaders need to fix the system to sign our petition. About 75 people signed dup uring the "Wake Up" event!! Nice work guys!!
If you are interested in holding a fun event like this, let us know (email: evan@secureourfuture.org) so that we can help!!
Today Post columnist Ruth Marcus devastates Times columnist adviser Paul Krugman, whom she actually mentions by name. Marcus notes a Krugman column from last week in which the former Enron adviser pooh-poohs concerns about the solvency of Social Security.
"Somebody should introduce Paul Krugman to . . . Paul Krugman," she writes, citing a series of old Krugman columns in which he sounded alarms about the solvency of Social Security. The best one is from a book review that appeared in the Times in 1996, before Krugman was a columnist. He wrote:
Responsible adults are supposed to plan more than seven years ahead. Yet if you think even briefly about what the Federal budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately realize that we are drifting inexorably toward crisis; if you think 30 years ahead, you wonder whether the Republic can be saved.
On October 16th S4's Jo Jensen had the opportunity to ask Senator Clinton how she plans to fix Social Security for future generations and to let the Senator know that Social Security reform is an issue that today's students care about.
Recently, Senator Clinton's campaign has been accused of planting questions. Specifically, telling college students what to ask. In a blog post from the Nation, one of S4's Social Security questions is wrongfully accused of being planted.
I asked that question, I can tell you that it absolutely was not planted. I showed up for the Salem, NH town hall meeting three hours early to try and get a good seat with other S4 members. When the Senator said that she would take questions, I raised my hand as high as I could, in hopes that she would call on me. Luckily she did and I was able to ask a serious question on an issue that I care deeply about.
For the record, Students for Saving Social Security is comprised of thousands of students around the country that are passionate about Social Security reform. With headquarters both in New Hampshire and DC, our students attend town hall meetings, campaign events and debates looking for any opportunity to talk with the candidates about this important issue.
S4 has asked every presidential candidate where they stand on Social Security reform and has never worked with a campaign to "plant" a question.
Index benefits to prices, not wages (Cut Benefits)
Create optional add-on personal retirement accounts. (Transform the system)
So it looks like Fred chose options (1) and (3). That's no surprise since he's running in the Republican primaries. It's also pretty straightforward, and it would fix most of the shortfall, while giving retirees the same purchasing power as they would have today.
The PRA proposal is what gets interesting:
On the personal accounts, 2 percent of workers’ paychecks would automatically be entered. The government would give the employee $2.50 for every $1 contributed into the account, up to $1,000 per month or $12,000 per year. After that point, 50 cents would be matched to every $1. This money would be paid for by the current Social Security fund, Mr. Thompson said.
It's not immediately obvious where this money will come from, but the suggestion is that we'll use the current "surplus" (until 2017) and also part of general revenues...and of course the current "Social Security fund" (which is confusing, because there isn't any actual money in it).
This is a good deal for those soon-to-retire. It's also a great deal for young people who would have the benefit of a lifetime of growth with initial government matching. It also nudges the current system towards a sustainable path while giving future retirees the same deal as today's retirees have.
Who loses with this plan? Those retiring in the medium term (15-25 years away) get a smaller benefit than they were promised, and they won't have a long term of compounding ahead of them in their personal account.
In the end, of course, any reform will have winners and losers, and it appears as if he has chosen to spread the pain as widely and thinly as possible. Kudos to Senator Thompson for having the guts to lay out his plan when everyone else has their heads in the sand.
Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times and economist at Princeton, goes after Senator Obama's Social Security plan in a recent "Conscience of a Liberal" blog post. Krugman isn't concerned about the economic effects of raising the payroll tax cap, or the fact that eliminating the cap does not solve all of the funding shortfall.
No, Krugman is upset because Obama is making Social Security an issue. That's right, Krugman does not want presidential candidates to talk about Social Security. Or rather, the candidates can talk about the issue, just as long as they don't talk about it too much.
Here are three points that summarize Krugman's post, with comments in italics:
1. The bigger entitlement problem is health care, so why bother talking about Social Security?
There is a scene from the movie Sicko in which Michael Moore becomes outraged when a hospital patient with two severed fingers is asked which of his fingers he wants reattached. That is, the patient is given the option of saving one finger or the other, but not both.
Notice any similarities? Why is Krugman asking us to choose between Medicare and Social Security?
2. With the help of "progressives," the 2005 reforms stalled in Congress. The issue of Social Security reform is therefore settled, and we should never revisit the program's funding problems.
Setting aside the issue of whether the "progressive" label really ought to apply to people who oppose changing a system from the 1930s, doesn't this logic suggest that Senator Clinton should not be talking about the universal health care coverage that Krugman supports, since Clinton's plan was roundly rejected in 1994?
3. Obama is talking about Social Security because he is "desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders."
This really would be interesting. Instead of votes, what Obama really wants is the approbation of people in Washington who recognize the Social Security crisis. And those people, if I understand Krugman correctly, are all Republicans. Does this mean Obama is going to run as a Republican?
You get the point -- Krugman's post is ridiculous. And if you don't believe that, one of the NYT readers was kind enough to point out a book review from 1996 in which Krugman sounded the alarm about both Social Security and Medicare:
In short, the Federal Government, however solid its finances may currently appear, is in fact living utterly beyond its means. While the present generation of retirees is doing very nicely, the promises that are being made to those now working cannot be honored.
At the beginning of that post, titled "Demographics and Destiny," Krugman offered a portentous book synopsis. Here is his summary, with his capital letters:
"When the baby-boomers retire, we are in BIG trouble."
Check out the pics from our event @ Rivier College last week...
These Social Security ROCKSTARS @ Rivier College spent all day Wednesday spreading the word to fellow students about the need for Social Security reform. Students on their lunch breaks were encouraged to play the "Free Snickers Game!" which is a rather deceptive game that teaches the unfairness of our current system of Social Security.
Then, if they agreed that it's messed up we are forced to pay into a failing system, students could make their voices heard by sending a Screw Petition to a senator or presidential candidate, telling the politicians that we are getting "Screwed!" by Social Security.
The student response was great. Everyone agreed this is an important issue for our generation. The next time a presidential candidate comes to Rivier College, the students will be prepared to force him or her to outline a plan addressing the problems facing Social Security! BOOYAH!
The American Spectator had a good piece Monday that addressed some of the current perspectives about Social Security reform. The op-ed begins:
Throw away the lock box. Ignore the blue-ribbon commissions. Don't save Social Security. As the baby boomers age, the new liberal mantra concerning FDR's retirement program may be summed up in a single sentence: The system ain't broke, so don't fix it.
W. James Antle III, the writer of the article, goes on to point out that raising the payroll tax accomplishes nothing if the trust fund is not protected. In so doing, Antle touches on the argument made by some -- including LA Times journalist Michael Hiltzik, who published an entire book based on his shoddy critique of Social Security reform -- that conservatives want to increase cash flow into the trust fund in order to reduce income taxes.
The problem with this argument is, as Antle explains:
[I]t isn't right-wingers who want to stuff the trust fund with more IOUs and more payroll-tax revenues. Typically, the culprits are liberals...Obama suggested raising the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes, which now stands at $97,500. His rival John Edwards has recommended levying that tax on workers earning more than $200,000.
In other words, many of the Democratic candidates are suggesting that we pour more money into the trust fund but that we continue to raid the fund every year. Talk about a noticeable step backward from the lock box days.
I wonder: What is Hiltzik's explanation for this? And how can anyone believe that creating a surplus through an increase in payroll taxes will do any long-term good if the trust fund is not protected?
