Truthout Original

Facebook DIGG

McCain Would Privatize Social Security

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
(Image: FBI)

    The Republicans have already turned to sick sexual innuendo and nonsense about their vice-presidential candidate, pigs and lipstick in order to distract the public from the real issues in this campaign. One of the items that should be on top of the list of real issues is Senator McCain's plans to privatize and cut Social Security.

    McCain has repeatedly expressed interest in privatizing Social Security along the lines proposed by President Bush. For those who have forgotten that nightmare, Bush's plan would have reduced benefits by approximately one percent a year for many workers.

    Workers who retired 10 years after the plan was put in place would see a 10 percent reduction in benefits compared with the currently projected levels. Workers who retired 20 years after the plan was implemented would see approximately a 20 percent cut in benefits and workers who retired 40 years after the plan started would see their benefits cut by close to 40 percent.

    This schedule of cuts would apply to workers who earn $100,000 a year. Workers who earn $60,000 a year would see cuts of about half this size.

    The losses to retired workers could mean big benefits for the financial industry. Under some versions of the plan, the financial industry would rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in fees and commissions over the next 40 years.

    According to a recent World Bank analysis, the financial industry pocketed 15-20 percent of the money paid into the privatized Social Security system in Chile, which has often been held up as a model by privatizers in the United States. Given the losses that the millionaire Wall Street bozos have incurred with the housing crash, it is understandable that Senator McCain would want to help the very rich needy.

    Privatization would be especially painful coming now, in the wake of the collapse of the housing bubble. The huge baby boom cohort that is just now reaching retirement age has seen most of their wealth wiped out by the housing crash.

    A recent analysis that I did with David Rosnick, my colleague at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, showed that a typical late-baby-boomer household (between the ages of 45 and 54) will have less than $100,000 in wealth in 2009. This figure includes 401(k)s, IRAs and other retirement accounts, personal savings and home equity.

    A relatively small share of these late baby boomers has traditional defined-benefit pensions. In other words, these families are going to have very little to support themselves in retirement other than the Social Security that Senator McCain is so anxious to cut.

    While the Bush-McCain crew has long been trying to whip up fears about Social Security's finances, the reality is that the program is financially solid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently updated its analysis of the program's finances.

    The analysis projects that Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2049, when the program is first projected to face a shortfall, the payable benefit is projected to be more than 30 percent higher than what the average retiree gets today, and the payable amount would continue to rise from that level every year.

    The privatizers have worked hard to convince the public that Social Security is on its last legs, but this is simply a lie. We are going to face many problems that dwarf the dimensions of the projected Social Security shortfall. For example, the annual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are approximately three times as large as the annual revenue that would be needed to eliminate the projected Social Security shortfall.

    The 2049 date when Social Security is first projected to face a shortfall is more than three decades after the latest date when the next president can leave office. John McCain will be 113 when Social Security is first projected to be unable to pay full benefits. In a country where millions of families are struggling to hang onto their homes, and tens of millions are struggling to pay for health care and child care, a distant and relatively minor problem like the projected Social Security shortfall hardly warrants center stage.

    The public should know that Social Security is fundamentally sound today and is projected to be sound far into the future. The line about Social Security going bankrupt is just a scare tactic pushed by the privatizers.

    The presidential debate must return to Social Security and other issues that affect people's lives. The sleaze that Senator McCain and his vice-presidential candidate throw out as a distraction should be left to the pigs.

»


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

"Privatize" is one of those

"Privatize" is one of those weak, innocent-sounding terms like "surge", that sanitize the underlying issues. As powerful as this article is, it should adopt and promote a stronger term than "privatize". After all, "private" carries positive connotations: right to privacy, private enterprise, private property, etc. This plan is another corporate ripoff. So maybe a better term should be "corporatization" or "risk transfer" or something like that. Anyone have ideas?

They have to make amends for

They have to make amends for their sins (the melt-down of the sub-primes) affecting the financial industry. Maybe taking our social security and propping up a faltering stock market may assuage many of their cronies that lost money due the sub-prime fallout.

I think that the point made

I think that the point made bout the wars costing us what could be going toward shoring up SS underscores the motives of those who see government programs as money they could have. Is it any wonder that the surpluses of Clinton have turned into the deficits of Bush? The Norquist aim of shrinking government until it can be drowned in a bathtub is served equally well by bankrupting the government until it collapses.

Please do a story on

Please do a story on this. http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/ Turns out, the entire mainstream media missed this.

Aren't all these financial

Aren't all these financial institutions that are sinking private as well. Hummmm.

Well, I guess if you have

Well, I guess if you have more houses than you remember and like all members of the House and Senate guaranteed benefits plus free health-care (the best) you could justify this type of thinking. RISK TRANSFER is a very appropriate term for this type of action. Personally I have been wondering for quite some time how a person is supposed to work until age 67 when there are no jobs to be found for people over age 50((unless you are a CEO of a large corporation) and at what point the average American is supposed to save enough for their "golden years?" While they are burdened with their own job-security, putting kids through college AND taking care of elderly parents/in-laws?????????????????? It boggles the mind how much our government is out of touch with the stark reality of American life - as well as the ignorance of the average American voter. I don't know which bothers me more, but it does not bode well for the future either way!

Good points, all. I like

Good points, all. I like the term "corporatization", even though it isn't really a word. We need a word that reflects the reality that the plan to turn the management (and profits) of Social Security over to private corporations is a plan to enrich the filthy rich among us. I predict that our government would later be bailing out this corporate entity in the decades to come - just like Fannie Mae and Mac.

I second the notion about

I second the notion about the word "privatize." I like your suggestion of using the word "corporatization." This week is a perfect week to point out the foolishness of handing our retirement insurance over to the rich guys on Wall Street. They've made quite a mess, haven't they?!?

Question.. If Socialist

Question.. If Socialist in-Security is privatized, does that mean that Real Americans like me, who do not have such an account or Beast system number, would we actually be allowed to work without the usual non-sense of court battles?

Wouldn't you be glad today

Wouldn't you be glad today if you had all your retirement funds in say Lehman Brothers and AIG (American International Group) and you had no social security backup? You would pretty much be busted. You would be watching the stock market fall today and be saying why isn't their some government backed retirement security.

If I invest my own money, I

If I invest my own money, I can put it in things I believe in. If I have money taken from me by force by the government, it can be used to support war and other forms of corruption. What's more, governments can go broke, as ours appears to be doing. Some countries have chosen private plans for these reasons. In some cases, workers have invested in companies where they work. Businesses can go broke also, but at least the workers may have keys to the buildings they worked from. Much thought went into designing a form of government that would police itself. There are times when this has sort of worked, but not lately. I would trust the State of Oregon to be involved in welfare far more than I would trust anyone in Washington, D. C. I grew up near D.C. We have corruption out here, but it pales in comparison to that of D.C.

I think some of the panic is

I think some of the panic is because many people equate Social Security with Medicare. they are two different programs. I'd like to see what the Republicans want to do to Medicare also!

There is a highly

There is a highly significant distinction that can attach to my Social Security benefit unlike any other retirement asset that I own or could own. I may easily lose all of the money I have invested in Wall Street, but I will still have Social Security to sustain me. That is, this distinction involves concepts of the Social Contract: have we promised ourselves, as a people of one nation, to care for those who have retired or not? Privatization would breach this fundamental promise of the Social Contract. Privatization would indeed strand many seniors of the future in a mean poverty.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were once successful government programs until they were "privatized." Now, the government has to step in to rescue them from mismanagement, although at a hugely greater cost - to us taxpayers. And Republicans are for "less government?" Yeah, only when their corporate friends need rescuing. If they do the same and privatize SS, the same thing will happen, except the US government will be so broke by then that, with all the debt being heaped upon it, they will have to sell it to China to bail it out. Republicans don't care, because they are so filthy rich that they can buy their own health insurance and pay for their own retirement outright. They are totally disconnected with reality. It's outrageous, because if McCain is successful at winning (stealing) the election (look at Ohio vote rigging, purging of Democrats from Mississippi registration lists, etc.) then they get to call the shots for the majority of Americans who suffer because of their blatantly self-interested policies.

There are always a

There are always a supportive voice or two in any discussion about privatizing Social Security. Usually people with the luxury of discretionary funds, and who are in good health. But consider what is becoming ever-more a majority of citizens living close to the edge. How many would actually not be able to invest anything at all. How many others, especially younger people, would put off investment savings in favor of short-term frills and pleasures? These are all among those protected from both themselves, their employers and others by Social Security. Social Security is no big deal for the wealthy where retirement income is concerned. They live off interest on their investments and leave estates to their children. As, in everything else we've seen in the Bush administration--and in McSame proposals--privatization is aimed at benefitting big business, and to hell with low- and middle-class citizens. I don't think John McSame has either the mental ability or the desire to come up with anything new and different from the same of GOP greed.

Good article. This should be

Good article. This should be a major talking point for the Obama campaign. Remember that George W. Bush hardly mentioned a word about Social Security when he ran in 2004. And as soon as he secured four more years in the White House, "privatizing" Social Security became his highest priority. Does anyone really believe John McCain---especially given the army of corporate lobbyists running his campaign---that he wouldn't try something similar? John McCain will deny it publicly---because he knows he has to---but it's clear that he is going to go after Social Security and Medicare. He's going to need that money to give more tax cuts to the wealthiest 5% of the electorate and bail out his friends on Wall Street.

I have only my social

I have only my social security. I am old enough to have played with stock that became worthless when the stock market inevitably crashed- just as it is doing today. I had more things, property, money not so long ago. I even had good health insurance. I'm still living on social security. No one can predict their future estate, but we can predict the state. Something is rotten.

It is no mystery why they

It is no mystery why they want to privatize social security. They keep borrowing from the fund to cover the national debt and interest payments of our nation's debt. We all know how the national debt interest has grown under Bush. They don't want to admit this, of course. Instead they tell Americans who trusted the politicians to secure their future that the system does not work. But the truth is they didn't balance the budget - they spent it on private contractors for their war-so they dipped into our security leaving nothing but IOUs for our future. Year after Year. McCain knows their going to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar if they don't move to privatize fast.

does this analysis take into

does this analysis take into consideration possible future Bush administration)s?

Anyone like the term

Anyone like the term "Mercenary Benevolence"? -Or how about "Philanthropic Theft"? I personally like the term "Corporatism" because it's how Benito Mussolini described fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism because it is the union of State and Corporate power." Hmmm. Let's see, what do we have here today??? We could also refer to "corporate punishment" of Social Security. We could also call the people who are pushing for this crap "Robber Altruists" or "Anti-Retirement Terrorists", or refer to it as The Great Golden Years Heist. Bloody hell. These greedy bastards need some kind of pruning back. What was that French word? Oh, yes. The guillotine. Speaking of "risk transfer", that is. Oh, and be sure to spread the word about electronic voting machine fraud. Rove is the subject of a federal law suit concerning masterminding that very thing, to STEAL NATIONAL ELECTIONS. Sure flies under the media radar, doesn't it? Like the rally up there in Alaska, for Sarah Palin's "homecoming", where the protesters outnumbered supporters. http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/ Didn't hear about that either, did we? BTW, fine article, Mr. Baker!

Well I dont think the people

Well I dont think the people should allow a single mans opinion to become law under any circumstance. Regardless of the commercial celebrity icon put into the highest position of office in the United States. I am of the opinion that procedures and policies need to be addressed and changed when it comes to the voice of the people who should be the benefactor's of these policies and not some non human corporation. Its time to take back our country from the corporate coffers and restrict the authority of presidential decisions with a vote of the masses, not a handful of corporate meatpuppets.

Privatization has worked

Privatization has worked soooo well in the less seven years... I think a minority of the population may do fine w/that option but if you are average or are persona- economics- challenged, I foresee many people screwed as they enter retirement. And then there are those who become severely disabled during their working years. Haven't heard a squeek about disabled adults except veterans. They must be invisible- which is not to be confused w/transparent which means visible

Actually there is little

Actually there is little chance McCain (if he wins) could privatize social security with the democrats in control of congress. Social Security is not in danger for the next 4 years. Roe vs Wade is a different story.

To the writer who suggests

To the writer who suggests "corporatization" is not a word, of course it is. Not only is it in the dictionaries, it has been used for years and it represents a true phenomena. So, go ahead, use the word and use it frequently. It is the fear of and failure to use language courageously, clearly and accurately which has resulted in the muddle mind of the U.S. people, incapable as we largely are to reach our own conclusions based on our own analysis, without running everything through the mass media, the corporate news rags and the ubiquitous black box.

When the Christo-Fascists in

When the Christo-Fascists in the GOP take over this next administrative cycle of the presidency, we're likely to see the hand-over of Soc-Sec to the Financiers. It's about the only thing left to give them. The rich have already stolen home equity. The rich have already stolen wage growth. The rich have already stolen health care contributions. The rich have already stolen the airwaves and wires. The rich have already stolen the land. Nothing left for them to steal but your savings, and if you invest in a 401k they've already stolen a good bit of that. Why not let them have the portion of your retirement money they don't already get? Welcome to the new feudalism. Barons and peasants in 2012, change is coming!!!!! Change is coming!!!!!!!!

I'll be the dissenting

I'll be the dissenting opinion on this topic: Not one person so far has addressed Social Security from the standpoint of being equitable to the people forced to participate in this Ponzi scheme. Shouldn't each of us the the right to opt-out of paying into the system and claiming benefits? Social Security is a bad deal. I would opt-out in a flash! When I started working (full time) 20 years ago I began paying the same amount into a 401K as is going into Social Security payments by myself and my employer. Today I have a 401K worth $1.5 million that will easily grow to $4 million by retirement. So, when I retire that will conservatively generate $200K/year in income - plus my estate will still have the principal that I can leave to my children. Conversely Social Security will pay me less than $36K / year with no principal balance for my kids - assuming the system remains solvent. Would I prefer to privately invest for my retirement? In a heartbeat! I just don't understand why there is so much enthusiasm to keep paying into this pyramid scheme. Can you people do the math?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.