Will Hillary or Obama get serious about retirement security?
April 18th, 2008 by Matt KibbeAs the Democratic Presidential Primary winds down in Pennsylvania, to no surprise, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has provided the voters of Pennsylvania with a real proposal for saving Social Security.
It’s funny, the pundits say that the Democratic candidates have been able to draw young people into their campaigns, but when it comes to Social Security reform, the one issue that every young person (regardless of their political views) is going to feel the impact of, both candidates seem reluctant to talk about it.
With all of the back-and-forth exchanges between Senators Obama and Clinton, only once has the issue of Social Security been brought up. In fact, it was only brought up when framed as a question by Charles Gibson in the April 16th debate in Philadelphia.
Here is a quick summary of their exchange on Social Security during the debate (from CBSNews.com):
The candidates disagreed on how to help stabilize Social Security. Obama was open to the idea of raising the cap on the payroll tax if he determined that the additional revenue would help. Clinton disagreed. She said Obama was willing to raise taxes on the middle-class, which both candidates promised not to do, and referenced the bipartisan commission created by Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill in 1983 as a way of finding a solution to Social Security then and now.
“I will say, number one: Don’t cut benefits on current beneficiaries,” Clinton said. “They’re already having a hard enough time. And number two: Do not impose additional tax burdens on middle-class families.
There are lots of ways we can fix Social Security that don’t impose those burdens, and I will do that.” Obama pointed out that Clinton seemed to neglect the results of the 1983 commission. “That commission raised the retirement age, Charlie, and also raised the payroll tax,” Obama said. “And so Senator Clinton - she can’t have it both ways. You can’t come at me for proposing a solution that will save Social Security without burdening middle-income Americans and then suggest that somehow she’s got a magic solution.”
Are these once again, “just words?” They must be.
Does anyone see a plan here that will actually help solve the imminent problems facing retirement security for the over 180,000,000 Americans who are under the age of 45 (2000 Census)?
The reality is that even when the issue was raised in front of over 10 million viewers, they candidates seeking our nation’s highest office still couldn’t bring themselves to admit that the current system is structurally flawed, and cannot be fixed by tax-hikes and/or raising the age of retirement.
The only way that Social Security can be fixed is with a complete overhaul that will implement new options and incentives for younger workers.
Unless young Americans use the power they have in this election and demand proposals for saving Social Security, to candidates from all political backgrounds, it is likely that young people will be working further into their later years than any other generation.
While the race in Pennsylvania is wrapping up, it’s never too late to share your concerns for the future of Social Security, as well as the future of the financial security of America’s younger generation with the candidates you support.
At FreedomWorks.org, we have compiled contact information and various quotes from all of the remaining candidates on a variety of issues. I urge everyone, regardless of your age, income, and political affiliation to see where the candidates stand, especially on Social Security.
If they can’t provide a plan that gives real solutions over hypothetical scenarios, press them until they provide you with an adequate answer – and let us know what they say so we can tell others. It might take a few tries, but if you’re persistent, they’ll eventually answer.
As I mentioned in my last post on this issue, do not let any of the candidates get away with doubletalk on this issue. If the candidates are worried about the economic situation now, what are they willing to do to prevent a total collapse of retirement security in the future?
April 18th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I’m surprised that they weren’t even able to propose solutions that MIGHT work. Instead, they just either dodged the question and/or went after each other.
At least present a formative idea, don’t just expect us to let this one slide.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Does anyone see a plan here that will actually help solve the imminent problems facing retirement security”
Ummm, yea, the same one that was used in the 1980s and is being pushed by Obama and many others…wake up…it’s really not the end of the world.
“to admit that the current system is structurally flawed, and cannot be fixed by tax-hikes and/or raising the age of retirement.”
This is an outright lie, period.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I think the full quote was:
“The reality is that even when the issue was raised in front of over 10 million viewers, they candidates seeking our nation’s highest office still couldn’t bring themselves to admit that the current system is structurally flawed, and cannot be fixed by tax-hikes and/or raising the age of retirement.”
From what I recall, I didn’t see them make any suggestions that the system was actually flawed.
Both candidates were only “open to ideas,” however none of them were new ideas.
I don’t think it’s the end of the world either, but if your going to be a candidate that is going to be willing to work with both sides, you better be willing to discuss the problems with social security and finding new solutions.
Or at least, I’d imagine that’s the impression you’d want to give - should you be a candidate poised for the general.
I wouldn’t use the Social Security Reforms of the 1980’s as a great success that should be considered to implementation again.
Yes, it may have stabilized the problems for a short term. However, I don’t see any reason why we should have to consider the prospect of making our young people work longer, pay more taxes, etc.
I know it’s a debate that as we’ve all see on this blog, will never end. However, the only point that I want to get across, which I agree completely with Mr. Kibbe on, is that we need to come up with some new solutions.
I’m not ever saying that they need to be passed. However, if we bring the up, debate them, and they still don’t seem to be the best fix for the solution, then maybe you’re mister guy, we should discuss what’s worked in the past.
But, before, I don’t see any harm in trying discussing new ideas. Furthermore, I don’t see how there would be any negative push-back on the Democrats for presenting a plan of their own, instead of just saying that they would be open to exploring what has been tried in the past.
I don’t see how you can be a candidate of “change” or one of “new solutions” if you’re only poising yourself to looking at old plans versus what could be new and innovative approaches to policy.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The “ultimate solution”..!!..
Boomsday
By Christopher Buckley
Twelve
Tom Wolfe recently told a group of journalists that politics has become so odd that fiction faces a real challenge. How can an author make stuff up when the news is almost always a step ahead?
This question looms above Christopher Buckley’s Boomsday like an anvil yo-yo, dropping mercilessly (and regularly) over the reader’s head. In the fictional “Boomsday,” (which follows a critically acclaimed film version of Buckley’s “Thank You for Smoking,”) the author orchestrates an elaborate war between the ends of the voting-age spectrum: the baby boomers and the U30s (under 30s), aka Generation Whatever.
Set in a not-so-distant future, “Boomsday” is the story of Cassandra Devine, a 29-year-old blogger who commands America’s youth through her digital rants. Incensed by the self-serving lifestyle of the boomer generation, who, in her view do little more than drain Social Security and pass on debt, Cassandra urges her peers to march on retirement communities.
April 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
ha ha, that sounds like a good plan b or c solution (j/k). Lets just hope it never has to get to that point.
April 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
SS isn’t “flawed” at all…it’s one of the most highly sucessfull programs to come out of the era of the New Deal, which is something that you “conservatives” will never admit to, ever. Your “new ideas” have been trotted out in front the American people by Bushy Boy (who spent a fair amount of that political capital that he spoke about after the 2004 election), and you guys lost that argument, again. I understand that you’re not going to just give up at this point, but your scare tactics have been tried before & they’ve failed miseralbly! Why would you think that they’d work now??
“I don’t see any reason why we should have to consider the prospect of making our young people work longer, pay more taxes, etc.”
Younger people will be naturally living longer than ever before, and they won’t pay any more taxes unless they likely make a huge amount of money. I’ve never seen anyone discouraged from being sucessfull by the amount of taxes that they *might* pay in the future…far from it actually.
April 20th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Mister Guy - Trust me, I’m not trying to scare anyone. If I was trying to scare people into seeing my points, I’d be much less diplomatic.
I agree, I don’t think anyone will be discouraged about making less money.
However, just because people live longer doesn’t mean that the government should make them work longer, instead of finding other ways to deal with the financial challenges the system will face.
You’re absolutely right about President Bush and his proposal. He came out strong with his arguments and a lot of people stood behind him, but he just couldn’t deliver on it.
Half of me thinks it was the proposal, the other half thinks it was just politics as usual. We had the majority, and we still couldn’t make something happen - so I definitely see your point there.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:12 am
I applaud Masden for staying so diplomatic but What the hell are you talking about Mister Guy? Social Security will be insolvent in 30-50 years (depending on who’s estimate you trust) and already presents a daunting pay out problem for soon to retire boomers. Are you saying it is not a problem that the U.S. would default on its treasury bonds for the first time in history? Even for the lowest level of pay outs (the lowest income bracket) it would take 30 years to make back the money you put into the system for a person retiring in 2012. For the upper brackets that can be up to 50-80 years depending on the degree of escalation. These were the estimates given by the Social Security Administration themselves in their 2003 published report. The shifts of the 1980’s Greenspan Commission simply reallocated the burden of Social Security and preempted the problems we will now face with the system. They were nothing more than marginal adjustments and in reality were a shift of the system to a welfare structure rather than a responsible, pay in,compulsory IRA, as the program was intended and created for. Bush’s plan was god-awful as it effectively took trade deficits as a measure of financing ON TOP of the FICA tax. The plan was attacked on both sides of the aisle for its fiscal short comings and should not be considered a representation of the right’s plan for SS reform. I’m absolutely appalled that you can believe there is not a huge problem facing social security, regardless of principle or proposed solutions. The numbers are there, the SSA is not hiding them and they suggest something must be done as well. With FICA already at roughly 13% of income, is a tax increase really the answer to our problems? Government raids SS every year and has for years which is the logic behind moving Social Security into the private sector away from the allocations of pork-rich politicians. Tell me how a mandatory private IRA is any less efficient or worthwhile than a mandatory slush fund/reallocation that is the current social security system? You need to get your mind off of “new deal” ideologies and onto the facts of the current social security program. Ignorance will not help solve this problem.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Eh, we covered this in Kibbe’s last thread. He’s one-note blogger. One issue, no new news, just keeps posting it every two weeks. I said everything that needed to be said in the other thread.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“We had the majority”…maybe in Congress, but not in terms of support for your SS privatization scheme. The American people like and want SS to continue as is, and with a few tweaks, it will.
Again scare tactics about what *might* happen in many decades don’t work. The crisis in the health care sector far and away outstretches the easily-fixable issues with SS.
Look, I’m not the one that went to visit the SS Trust Fund and then called the federal securties in that fund “worthless IOUs” or some other ridiculous phrase…that was your boy Bush. SS is NOT welfare, period. NO ONE that I know of is advocating that people pay more than the percentage of SS taxes that they pay right now…simply that the rich pay in their fair share, period.
The federal govt. is not “rading” anything. If you have little confidence in the SS Trust Fund, then I suggest that you shread your dollar bills as well…there’s nothing backing them up besides the “full faith and credit of the USA” either. Better yet…send those dollars to me…lol…
April 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“The Federal Government is not raiding anything”
HAHA at that. Read up on where your tax dollars are going. And the concepts of Fiat money supply and budget allocation by greedy politicians are two entirely different issues.. Ugh….
April 21st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
My tax dollars are overwhelmingly going to a useless and illegal war…if you have a problem with the unified budget theory, take it up with President Johnson…he’s dead BTW.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Do you listen to yourself talk MisterGuy? Or are you just accustomed to writing random non-related bullshit to sidestep your ignorance?
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Keep sticking your head in the sand…it seems to be working out well for you…lol…