GOP Social Security Strategy Book
The Republican Party has sent its leaders an over-100-page strategy book on how to save - excuse me, kill - Social Security. It includes facts, figures, examples, op-ed articles, statements by Democrats in previous years and what the opposition is saying today. It gives pointers on what to say and how to say it. The big push, of course, is for privatization, though the document offers little in the way of reasonable support for it. It dwells on the building of a panic situation in order to achieve the GOP's goal of destroying Social Security.
The title is "Saving Social Security." But it's obvious that the goal is to dismember Social Security. Otherwise, why would they place so much emphasis on privatization?
Among the reasonable arguments the document makes is the expected reduction of the number of workers relative to the number of retired workers:
In the 1950s, there were about 16 workers paying for every beneficiary. Today, there are about three – and eventually, there will be only two workers to support each person on Social Security.
And the result will be a reduction in benefits:
Under the current system, today’s 30-year old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.
Does this mean we need privatization? Of course not. We maintained the system very well when the worker/retiree ratio went from 16/1 to 3/1. We can definitely make fixes to maintain the system as is when going from 3/1 to 2/1. A combination of benefit cuts and increased taxes can be found to do the job.
In addition, I believe that after the worker/retiree ratio gets to 2/1 it may begin rising again due to population increases and to seniors going back to work. A panic response is not necessary today.
Let's look at a few of the suggestions offered by the playbook:
Say "personalization" not "privatization."
Don't say, "Social Security lifts seniors out of poverty."
Quote theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffoer: “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children.”
Today’s workers have little confidence that Social Security will be there for them when they retire.
A few comments: Privatization is what the GOP is shooting for. Why not call it that? Of course, Republicans don't want to even talk about how Social Security helps the very poor. Quoting Bonhoefoer is ridiculous. The Republicans want to borrow about $2 trillion to take care of the transition to their privatization scheme. This plus the tax cuts for the wealthy put the burden on our children in a big way. As for the last point, today's workers do not have confidence in Social Security because during the last few decades Republicans have been running a Social Security scare campaign.
The document lists Democrats who have made statements in the past about saving Social Security. Here's a sample:
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Press Release: “This Report [By The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities] Provides Powerful And Convincing Evidence Of The Need To Save Social Security First.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “The President Has It Right And It’s A Position That I Think Virtually All The Democrats Support In The Senate. Protect Social Security …” (ABC’s “This Week,” 7/11/99)
President Clinton: “[Investing] Will Earn A Higher Return And Keep Social Security Sound For 55 Years.” (President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99)
What a smokescreen! Sure, the Democrats made these statements. They wanted to make sure that Republicans did not raid the Social Security Trust Fund. And when President Bill Clinton talked about investing he meant for the Social Security Administration or some other government body doing the investing - not burdening the individual investor with it, NOT PRIVATIZATION.
If you are worried about the privatization of Social Security, read the complete Republican playbook.
Privatization is anathema to Democrats. We need and we can fix Social Security by other means, without privatization.
