Welcome to 55 and Better

The "55 and Better" series focuses on the issues that effect everyone sooner or later. With that in mind, it is important that we join together in tackling the problems and looking for the solutions as we plan for the future. All of us have inherited a system including Medicare and Social Security from those who have fought the "good fight," now it remains up to us to continue the promise so that the years after 55 will be even better.

This Battle Is For You!

A Brief History Of Social Security

In the long fight to win retirement security for average Americans, there have been many soldiers that came to heed the call. The “Poor Laws” made the voyage to our shores with the early settlers, and gave birth to the many new ideas that would one day bring Americans a program that worked, Social Security. Democracy’s great friend, Thomas Paine, published the pamphlet “Agrarian Justice” that proposed an inheritance tax that would fund 10 pounds sterling to be paid to those over 50 as a hedge against the poverty of old age. In 1890 when Americans faced an economic collapse, an unsuccessful Ohio politician (pre-Diebold) entered the fray.

Pirate or Patriot? Meet Jacob Coxey.

This Battle Is For You! The Great Depression of the 1930s was not the only one in America's history. In fact, it was the third depression of the modern era, following previous economic collapses in the 1840s and again in the 1890s. During the depression of the 1890s unemployment was widespread and many Americans came to the realization that in an industrialized society the threat to economic security represented by unemployment could strike anyone--even those able and willing to work. Protest movements arose--the most quixotic and notable being that of "Coxey's Army." Jacob Coxey was an unsuccessful Ohio politician and industrialist who, in 1894, called on the unemployed from all over the country to join him in an "army" marching on Washington. Ten of thousands of unemployed workers started marches, but by the time Coxey and his group finally made it to Washington only about 500 hard-core believers remained. Coxey himself was promptly arrested for walking on the grass of the Capitol Building and the protest fizzled out. Coxey later became an advocate of public works as a remedy for unemployment and ran for president as the Farmer-Labor party candidate in 1932 and 1936. (Coxey was also an ardent proponent of the free-silver monetary policy and an opponent of the gold standard. Perhaps to demonstrate his earnestness on monetary issues he even named his son Legal Tender Coxey!) Although his march failed, Coxey's Army was a harbinger of an issue that would rise to prominence, as unemployment insurance would become a key element in the future Social Security Act. (Ohio would continue to play an important role in the development of unemployment insurance, as its state program was one of two looked to as models for the new federal program--the other being the program in operation in Wisconsin.)

During each age of trial and tribulation, Americans sought solutions to income security, with the 30s finding us in truly dire straights. Many reformers and movements left their names in the annuals of Social Security history: Alfred Dodge, who felt it his duty to provide for retired workers; Huey Long; Francis E. Townsend, a proud son of California; Upton Sinclair. And that is just a few who came before the man who finally pulled earlier ideas together to bring America into the light.

The Man & The Plan

"Security was attained in the earlier days through the interdependence of members of families upon each other and of the families within a small community upon each other. The complexities of great communities and of organized industry make less real these simple means of security. Therefore, we are compelled to employ the active interest of the Nation as a whole through government in order to encourage a greater security for each individual who composes it . . . This seeking for a greater measure of welfare and happiness does not indicate a change in values. It is rather a return to values lost in the course of our economic development and expansion . . ."Franklin D. Roosevelt: Message of the President to Congress, June 8, 1934.

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law with these words:

"We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."--
President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security Act.

There is much more to this interesting history at the government’s website along with other valuable information. And yet, the most vital piece of information is missing: How can we save it? After reading the history of our long struggle, we should all question why anyone would want to destroy such a work of legislative art?

Enter the Pirate Class.

1936 saw the raising of the Jolly Roger flying high at the Republican convention with Alf Landon at the helm. For years the assault continues, and for years the American people rejected the very idea of sinking a program that they came to love because it worked. Jonathan Chait provides a quick overview of the battles in The New Republic:

Conservatives always saw the program as an indefensible infringement upon freedom. Alf Landon, the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, called Social Security a "cruel hoax." More than 40 years ago, Milton Friedman wanted to let workers opt out of it, and Barry Goldwater said, "Perhaps Social Security should be abolished." That view, however, has never proved popular. And so conservatives hit upon the tactic of phasing out the program by transforming it into a system of private accounts. Privatization activist Peter Ferrara was quite open about this point in a recent interview with Steven Thomma of Knight-Ridder. "A lot of conservatives thought Social Security was an unjustified invasion into the private sector," he said. "But they weren't getting anywhere, because that was all negative politics. ... Personal accounts would work because that's positive politics."

Ah…Positive politics! Pass the grog! Keelhauling a major social program that millions rely upon to keep them afloat in the often-rough seas of their golden years, becomes a great idea. You’ve gotta hand it to them, they think big. Cutting and running between K-Street and Wall Street with this massive treasure doesn’t require a map.

A Solution Without A Problem

Inheriting Alf Landon’s crusade, new Republican names have signed onto the Pirate roster. Sailing to the land of perks and junkets, Rick Santorum on his way home to Virginia, recently made a stop in Philadelphia:

At a town-hall meeting last month in Philadelphia, Rick Santorum, the stalwart conservative senator from Pennsylvania, was pitching President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, speaking the reassuringly non-ideological language of insolvency dates and rates of return. It fell to a sympathetic college student in the audience, blessedly unversed in the arts of message discipline, to state what conservatives truly think--and have always thought--about Social Security. "I want to know what problem everybody has with taking care of themselves," she said. At a similar event, College Republicans chanted, "Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security has got to go."

Out of the mouths of babes came a pair of remarkably succinct statements about what is at stake as the Bush administration sets about privatizing Social Security: Should Social Security remain in something like its present form, as a social guarantee to retirees, widows, and disabled workers? Or should it be dismantled and replaced with a system in which everybody takes care of themselves?

(Note: Does this mean that Halliburton and Bechtel are just taking care of themselves?)

Just as history brought us champions when they were needed, so today we are graced with our generations enlightened believers in the fight for human dignity. We came to know and honor the work of Josh Marshall, Joe Conason, and an entire army of bloggers including the CCN Pirates. What was at stake in this battle, and why are we still fighting? In the words of one of our greatest heroes, Paul Krugman:

As I've described it, the case for privatization is a mix of strange and inconsistent budget doctrines, bad economics, dubious political economy, and science fiction.

What's wrong with these people?

The answer is definitely not that they are stupid. In fact, the case made by the privatizers is fiendishly ingenious in its Jesuitical logic, its persuasiveness to the unprepared mind.

But many of the people supporting privatization have to know better. Why, then, don't they say so? Because Social Security privatization is a solution in search of a problem. The right has always disliked Social Security; it has always been looking for some reason to dismantle it. Now, with a window of opportunity created by the public's rally-around-the-flag response after 9/11, the Republican leadership is making a full-court press for privatization, using any arguments at hand.

There are both crude and subtle reasons why economists who know better don't take a stand against the illogic of many of the privatizers' positions. The crude reason is that a conservative economist who doesn't support every twist and turn of the push for privatization faces political exile. Any hint of intellectual unease would, for example, kill the chances of anyone hoping to be appointed as Greenspan's successor.

All hands on deck. Enjoy our recent victory; however, know this: they will be back. Our greatest weapons are not the sword and cannon, but information. Fortunately they are bright and shining truths still existing all over the internet. Keep the facts at your fingertips.

From The Center for Progress:

Quote/Claim:

"A personal account would be your account, you would own it, and the government could never take it away.” [Source: White House Web site]" Bush, 2/08/2005

Fact:
"Bush’s Social Security plan is a far cry from the private ownership he’s touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, as the New York Times reports, the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts.” - NY Times, 2/6/05"

Oops! I guess Bush got a little confused.

For more truths try Think Progress:

CLAIM: “By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.” (President Bush, 2/2/05)
FACT: In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today’s beneficiaries. (WP, 2/5/05)
CLAIM:“In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.” (President Bush, 12/11/04)
FACT: “In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll.” (MSNBC, 1/14/05)
FACT: Under Bush’s plan, expenditures will begin to exceed revenues even earlier, in 2012. (New York Times, 2/4/05)
CLAIM: “Under the current system, today’s 30-year old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.” (GOP Guide to Social Security Reform, 1/27/05)
FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, younger workers would receive better benefits from Social Security as it exists now, even if nothing changes, than from President Bush’s private accounts plan. (EPI, 2/05)

Well, it would seem that Social Security is worth saving!
Our first action in the next battle, or Bush’s Social Security Sleight of Hand

Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.

His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years. (WaPo 2/07/06)

The ’06 elections are huge. All other actions depend on education—our own and all those we can reach.

The dream of income security came to our shores with the early settlers, and made its way into our reality through years of hard work by countless others. Our role in this saga is to protect and defend a program that works and will continue to work if it is kept from the greedy modern pirates. We can do this maties.