Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Associated Press
In this July 19, 2012, file photo, Vice President Joe Biden campaigns in Columbus, Ohio. Democrats are eagerly renewing their fight against privatizing Social Security now that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. It was a fight that didn’t go well for the GOP when former President George W. Bush pushed the idea in 2005.
Sunday, Aug. 19, 2012 | 12:19 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Democrats are eagerly renewing their fight against privatizing Social Security now that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. It was a fight that didn't go well for the GOP when President George W. Bush pushed the idea in 2005.
In his 2010 "Road Map for America's Future," the Wisconsin congressman proposed a plan to allow younger workers to divert more than one-third of their Social Security taxes into personal accounts that they would own and could will to their heirs.
Ryan wrote that the accounts would provide workers an opportunity "to build a significant nest egg for retirement that far exceeds what the current program can provide." Workers 55 and older would stay in the current system.
Romney hasn't embraced the proposal and Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, didn't include it in either of the federal budgets passed by House Republicans the past two years. But now that Ryan is running for vice president, Democrats hope to capitalize on the issue.
Bush's proposal for private accounts received a chilly reception from members in both parties in Congress, though Ryan embraced it. Democrats used the issue against GOP congressional candidates in the 2006 election, when they regained control of the House and Senate.
"The very last thing we ought to be doing is putting at risk the retirement security of millions of America's seniors," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who heads the Democratic National Committee.
Until now, Social Security had been largely absent from the presidential campaign. President Barack Obama has yet to lay out a detailed plan for addressing the issue, and his silence is drawing criticism from advocates who supported him in the past. Romney has been more forthcoming with proposals, but Social Security has not been a big part of his campaign, either.
Romney, in his book, "No Apology," said he liked the idea of personal accounts. But, he wrote, "Given the volatility of investment values that we have just experienced, I would prefer that individual accounts were added to Social Security, not diverted from it, and that they were voluntary."
Romney's current plan for Social Security doesn't mention personal accounts. Instead, he proposes a gradual increase in the retirement age to account for growing life expectancy. For future generations, Romney would slow the growth of benefits "for those with higher incomes."
Romney says tax increases should be off the table, and current beneficiaries and those near retirement should be spared from cuts.
"Mitt Romney and Paul support gradual reforms to Social Security that protect current beneficiaries from any benefit disruptions while strengthening the program to ensure that it doesn't go bankrupt," Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said.
The trustees who oversee Social Security say the trust funds that support the program will run dry in 2033. At that point, Social Security will generate only enough tax revenue to pay about 75 percent of benefits, triggering automatic cuts unless Congress acts.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama said he wanted to improve Social Security's finances by applying the payroll tax to annual wages above $250,000. It is now limited to wages below $110,100, a level that increases with inflation.
Obama also pledged to oppose raising the retirement age or reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs. "Let me be clear, I will not do either," Obama said at the time.
Last year, however, Obama put on the table a proposal to reduce annual COLAs during deficit-reduction talks with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. The talks ultimately failed and nothing came of the proposal, but it raised questions about whether Obama would honor his 2008 pledge.
"A national politician would do well to strongly identify themselves with Social Security, not just with rhetoric, but to be very clear that they understand the pain people are experiencing today, that they stand behind this program and they will protect the citizenry and they will not cut benefits," said Eric Kingson, a Syracuse University professor who co-founded Social Security Works. "I hope to hear that from the White House. I have not heard that yet."
Obama offered some principles to strengthen Social Security in his 2011 State of the Union address.
"We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable or people with disabilities, without slashing benefits for future generations and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market," Obama said in the speech.
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden made a more sweeping guarantee during a campaign swing in southern Virginia, telling a customer at a diner that Social Security will not be changed.
"I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security," Biden told the customer, according to a White House pool report. "I flat guarantee you."
A Biden adviser said later the vice president was merely reassuring the woman that her benefits would not be changed. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue.
Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher said the president "has put forward a set of principles to guide bipartisan action to strengthen it for future generations. Rather than laying the groundwork for a bipartisan approach as the president has done, Mitt Romney's only solution would mean deep benefit cuts for future retirees. His running mate, Paul Ryan was an architect of privatization."
Romney's campaign chided Obama's inaction.
"His failure to lead on entitlements has put the future of Social Security at risk," said Williams, the Romney spokesman. "Mitt Romney is committed to ensuring that Social Security is there for future generations and he has a comprehensive plan to save Social Security with commonsense reforms."
The fact that Romney/Ryan purposely distort Obama's $716B cut to medicare shows me just how dishonest they are. Especially since the cut is being spent on medical care, it doesn't reduce benefits to seniors.
Compare that to Ryan's proposal that cuts the same amount and the money is used to make up the difference created by tax breaks for the very rich. Why shouldn't the very rich be paying the same tax rate I am? Why should capital gains be taxed differently? Money is money. The interest on my savings, which the bank uses to invest, is taxed the same as my income. That money is still being invested.
"The $716 billion in cuts do not affect benefits for today's seniors. Instead, they reduce provider reimbursements and are intended to curb waste, fraud and abuse." ----- And I'll bet you ten thousand dollars, Ryan / Romney did NOT mention that little bit of information to the crowd.....
"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure that we're, you know -- that he's just being America's accountant and trying to be responsible" I mean this is the same guy who voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that costs as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for," Obama said on April 15, 2011.
(It wasn't just Democrats who criticized Ryan. While running for president, Newt Gingrich called Ryan's plan "right wing social engineering," which probably helped kill Gingrich's bid.)
The fact that Romney/Ryan purposely distort Obama's $716B cut to medicare shows me just how dishonest they are. Especially since the cut is being spent on medical care, it doesn't reduce benefits to seniors. Compare that to Ryan's proposal that cuts the same amount and the money is used to make up the difference created by tax breaks for the very rich. Why shouldn't the very rich be paying the same tax rate I am? Why should capital gains be taxed differently? Money is money. The interest on my savings, which the bank uses to invest, is taxed the same as my income. That money is still being invested.
Here are the top 10 comments about Bain from Romney's Republican rivals:
1. "The idea that you've got private equity companies that come in and take companies apart so they can make profits and have people lose their jobs, that's not what the Republican Party's about." -- Rick Perry [New York Times, 1/12/12]
2. "The Bain model is to go in at a very low price, borrow an immense amount of money, pay Bain an immense amount of money and leave. I'll let you decide if that's really good capitalism. I think that's exploitation." -- Newt Gingrich [New York Times, 1/17/12]
3. "Instead of trying to work with them to try to find a way to keep the jobs and to get them back on their feet, it's all about how much money can we make, how quick can we make it, and then get out of town and find the next carcass to feed upon" -- Rick Perry [National Journal, 1/10/12]
4. "We find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company, leaving behind 1,700 families without a job." -- Newt Gingrich [Globe and Mail, 1/9/12]
5. "Now, I have no doubt Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips -- whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out because his company, Bain Capital, of all the jobs that they killed" -- Rick Perry [New York Times, 1/9/12]
6) "He claims he created 100,000 jobs. The Washington Post, two days ago, reported in their fact check column that he gets three Pinocchios. Now, a Pinocchio is what you get from The Post if you're not telling the truth." -- Newt Gingrich [1/13/12, NBC News]
7. "There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business, and I happen to think that's indefensible" -- Rick Perry [National Journal, 1/10/12]
8. "If Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years, then I would be glad to then listen to him" -- Newt Gingrich [Mediaite, 12/14/11]
9. "If you're a victim of Bain Capital's downsizing, it's the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain, because he caused it." -- Rick Perry [New York Times, 1/8/12]
10. "They're vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton" -- Rick Perry [National Journal, 1/10/12]
Just last night, Newt Gingrich defended his attacks, saying "I think there are things you can legitimately look at in Bain Capital. I think there are things you can legitimately look at in anybody's record, including Mitt Romney's record."
On Friday the 13th (7/13/2012) the very illusive Mitt Romney gave very defensive interviews to all FIVE networks on a single day at once!! Just a few days ago Mitt Romney said to FOX News that explaining means that you are WEAK. So his five interviews "explaining" his time at Bain were signs of his weakness!!
Presidential Candidate Mr. Mitt Romney maybe feeling the heat on his role in BAIN Capital, his business experience which was supposed to be his sole criteria for creating jobs and his greatest qualification for running for the American Presidency in the current economy in 2012!
However SEC documents show Mitt Romney as sole owner of all shares of Bain Capital. Romney is shown as CEO, President and Chairman of Board of Bain Capital in 2001 and 2002 then LEGALLY speaking Mitt Romney has been responsible to all that goes on under the banner of Bain Capital.
Mitt Romney can not just share the good like job creation from 1999 to 2002 and leave the ugly like Bankruptcies and layoffs behind as if he had nothing to do about them from 1999 to 2002.
If he really wanted to disassociate himself from Bain Capital he could have resigned and sold all his shares in Bain Capital in February 1999 then it would have been a different matter but to share in the glory of Bain's job creation accept a salary of $100,000 or MORE (where are the Tax Returns?) for three years and only to refuse to take the responsibility of Bankruptcies and layoffs on his WATCH (1999-2002) is trying to have it both ways and then complaining of playing politics having been caught with his hand in the proverbial Cookie Jar that is the very essence of an ACTIVE LEGAL ROLE in Bain Capital till 2002!! Was Romney getting $100,000.00 or more to do NOTHING for BAIN Capital???
Mitt Romney will have to face the consequences of this leaving Bain "lie" that Mitt Romney has brought on upon himself. If we keep reminding the Romney campaign of the Bain exit lie and Romney's ill effects on workers robbing them of their hard earned salaries and life long benefits all the way to November then 7/13/2012 (FRIDAY the 13th) will go down as the turning point of the 2012 Presidential election!
Two-Faced Willard
"I was not responsible for what happened at Bain Capital" - Mitt Romney
"I was the Sole shareholder, Sole director, Chief executive officer and President of Bain" - Mitt Romney
"The Arizona immigration policy is a good model" -- Mitt Romney
"I didn't really support the Arizona immigration policy" -- Mitt Romney
"The Massachusetts healthcare plan should be a model for the nation" -- Mitt Romney
"Healthcare reform should be left to the states" -- Mitt Romney
"Let Detroit go bankrupt" -Mitt Romney
"I'll take a lot of credit for saving the auto industry" -Mitt Romney
"I believe Roe v Wade has gone too far." -- Mitt Romney
"Roe v Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." -- Mitt Romney
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose." -- Mitt Romney
"I never really called myself pro-choice." -- Mitt Romney
"It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam." -- Mitt Romney
"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and represent our country there." -- Mitt Romney
"I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." -- Mitt Romney
"Ronald Reagan is" my hero." -- Mitt Romney
"I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation." -- Mitt Romney
"There's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs." -- Mitt Romney
"I saw my father march with Martin Luther King." -- Mitt Romney
"I did not see it with my own eyes." -- Mitt Romney
"I would like to have campaign spending limits." -- Mitt Romney
"The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates without burdensome limitations." -- Mitt Romney
"I supported the assault weapon ban." -- Mitt Romney
"I don't support any gun control legislation." -- Mitt Romney
" ... Mitt Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" the GOP candidate "retroactively" retired from Bain Capital after the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics began. ... "
No body who has been drawing at LEAST $100,000.00 per year from 1999 to 2002 from Bain Capital "retroactively" retires from Bain Capital AFTER the 2002!!! Then why draw the salary of at LEAST $100,000.00 per year from 1999 to 2002 from Bain Capital if Romney retired from Bain "retroactively" !!!
" ... Gillespie continued, "He took a leave of absence and, in fact, Candy, he ended up not going back at all and retired retroactively to February of 1999 as a result." ... "
However SEC documents show Mitt Romney as sole owner of all shares of Bain Capital. Romney is also shown as CEO, President and Chairman of Board of Bain Capital in 2001 and 2002 then LEGALLY speaking Mitt Romney has been responsible to all that goes on under the banner of Bain Capital. Then to run for Governor of MA Romney sought residency of MA by lieu of his Bain positions. Now either Romney was at the Olympics OR he was at BAIN.
Only one can be true not BOTH at the same time simultaneously!!! Will the true Willard Mitt Romney stand up and accept ONE thing? Does Romney want to accept untrue SEC filings and be called a Felon or agree that he represented Bain from 1999 to 2002?
"Given the precedent set by past seven Presidents and Presidential candidates of releasing multi-year tax returns why is Romney making an exception?" Because he has a lot to hide, apparently.
He's the only one that knows what's in there, and apparently he's made the judgement that he's better off having us suspect the worst, rather than us knowing whats in there, which apparently in his mind is worse than anything we're likely to imagine.
Possibilities include:
(1) He ended up with 120 million in his 401K by the trick of agreeing with Bain to grossly undervalue the market value of his stock, then a few years later have the stock get unvalued to the stratosphere.
(2) He participated in the tax avoidance amnesty program of a few years back, avoiding major tax penalties or prosecution.
(3) Any one or more of the other borderline legal but very bad smelling tax dodges-- "in-kind" trades, "no-risk" trades, no-risk write-offs, the list is almost endless.
And BTW he HASNT even released all of his 2010 return, he very conveniently left off the foreign investments and deposits form. Very convenient.
And his argument that it would be "bothersome" to collect the tax data is a crock too-- he supposedly collected 23 years of the stuff to show to McCain in 2008.
=======================================================
Republicans betrayed their own conscience when they went against established Republican principles like the MANDATE over healthcare which was a Heritage foundation issue popularized by Gingrich.
Obama did more than his share to UNITE but the Republicans were out to oppose for opposing sake and not following any policy or principles. In the famous words of Minority Senate Leader Mitch McConnell the Republicans were out to defeat the Obama agenda even if it went against established Republican policies set by past precedent.
Mitch McConnell was out to make sure that President Obama remains a one term President and see where it has brought the Congress and its public esteem.
Gingrich out of his own admission was out to defeat Obama from the day he was sworn in as President.
You can not justify the Republicans as the "loyal" opposition as is the case in most mature democracies. They have been out to get President Obama by hook or by crook. A leader can meet the opposition half way but can not fold completely to their whims and fantasies like that of the current Tea Party affiliates.
Republicans will loose in 2012 just like they did in 2008 but with a smaller margin because of the dark money of Billionaires due to Citizens United verdict of the right wing Supreme Court.
Oh hell no. There is absolutely no way anyone in their right mind would vote for Tea/Republicans who want to privatize Social Security.
People need to understand this is the dog whistle they sound not to fix Social Security but to destroy it, blown to smithereens, jump up and down on the dust, kick it around til it blows to the four winds.
Tea/Republicans HATE Social Security. It is an unwritten rule that they HAVE TO destroy it.
To put a Tea/Republican in charge of Social Security is the same as making Dracula a caretaker of the blood bank in a large hospital.
In no way shape or form do I want them putting their grubby mitts on it. I don't even want them looking at it. I don't want them talking about it. Because they don't want to work within the system to fix it with easy things that will prolong the life of Social Security. THEY JUST WANT TO CRUSH IT.
For me, my choice is clear. It makes more sense to crush the entire Tea/Republican Party by voting them all out. That way they don't get close to even crushing Social Security.
I need to send a clear message that they keep talking about this privitization thing, they really need to understand it is the same as touching the third rail on an electric train track. DISINTEGRATION. They really need to understand this junk. I'm tired of this garbage they always say they are doing the will of the American people. They aren't. They're doing what they want.
I'm putting a stop to it with my vote. The line in the sand is drawn. Leave it alone, Tea/Republicans. You been warned. Or face destruction of your entire party by the American voters out here. Sick and tired of the silly word salad games you play.
ajain31 makes a case that cannot be denied, or spun, by GOP political operatives in the Mittens camp. Well stated and factual. Would that most of the electorate in this country had a political clue. Knee jerk, base baiting topics have their un-evolved, entire attention. Bible banging "Christians", who long ago, became narrow minded bigots and uncompromising ideologues rule the roost in GOP politics today. The flip flopping Mittens is the poster child for the "empty suit" robotic GOP candidate who can't stand for anything, even GOP platform planks that have been around since Reagan, and probably dating back to Goldwater. This guy is a fraud, and his running mate is right there with him. Social Security is a contract with American workers. They pay into the system, and upon retiring, can expect, and dare I say it, DESERVE, the benefits accrued. Privatization? Really? Anyone with a 401k in 2008 found out how that works out. I am retired. I began drawing Social Security at the age of 62. Why not work longer, for full benefits? Because I didn't have to. I served in the Military (20 years, could have stayed longer), and the "private sector" for 23 years. I had enough, and decided that whatever life expectancy was left for me wouldn't be spent working. Selfish? No. Greedy? No. I earned my Military retirement benefits, and I earned Social Security benefits. Making Social Security into a 401k type of retirement system is no retirement system at all. I paid into Social Security for my entire working life, including the Military. I live on the retirement pay I get from the USAF, and Social Security. Will I get rich? Hell no! Full disclosure: I am wealthy enough to live comfortably through my retirement years. People need a guaranteed base income in order to plan for their "golden years". They don't need the insecurity of the stock market to determine their retirement base line. I am invested in the stock market, and prepared to absorb the inevitable ups and downs. Most people aren't. They rely on Social Security for their livelihood. I live on my Military retirement and Social Security pay for my day to day expenses. It is my base line budget. Those less fortunate than me should have the dignity and steady income that Social Security provides without having to be a pawn in the stock market game. That is what "private investment" really means. It has no place in "paycheck to paycheck" people's lives.
Social Security would be fine if all income, including interest, dividends, and capital gains, were included in Social Security and Medicare withholding taxes.
Privatizing Social Security and Medicare, making them an investment account or private insurance policy, is about the most foolish thing I can think of. It is nothing but gambling, pure and simple. Not something to guarantee security or healthcare when one is no longer able to work.
It really seems like a scheme by business and the wealthy to make them more money off the back of the working class. Or, a way for business to make back some of the money they pay in wages, which they deduct from their taxes as well.
Americans should reject anybody who proposes to sell them down the river for power and more money, giving us the privilege of making them more "entitled" to be wealthy, and giving them the power to do whatever they want to the majority of the citizens of our country.
Another brick in the wall, of current and future generations!
Thank you, ajain31!
I think it is likely the Republicans will lose in the election. However, I don't expect Obama to be officially proclaimed the winner for awhile.
First of all, I am not confident in computerized voting at all, nor should anyone be who doesn't have a paper copy of their votes to take with them from the voting booth, after they have verified they were recorded correctly.
Paper copies of recorded votes should also have an official stamp, with the initials and identifying number of the volunteer from the voting location on exiting the booth.
I truly believe the Republican's will do everything possible, including demanding recounts, filing lawsuits, and whatever else they can do to invalidate the results if it shows Obama won.
It is also possible that it could be in the reverse, with Democrats doing the same if it appears Romney wins.
Get ready for the duration.
When those privatized funds are lost in the next stock market crash, Ryan and Romney will both be in the Cayman Islands or similar place, where they and their money are safe and talking about the 'Retirement Investments for Dummies' lesson they just pulled on America.
Once the investors have your money, try to get it back during the recession...or other downturn. An assault rifle will be very helpful under those conditions.
Over 400 independent economists signed a statement at the website Economists for Romney in support of what they call the Republican presidential candidate's "bold economic plan for America."
Five Nobel laureates (Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Myron Scholes) signed the statement which, in part, reads, "We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney's economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom."
The economists also denounced Obama's economic ideas, claiming they led to an "an anemic economic recovery and high unemployment." They further assert, "his future plans are to double down on the failed policies, which will only prolong slow growth and high unemployment."
The economists write that Romney's plan is based on sound principles: "more contained and less intrusive federal government, a greater reliance on the private sector, a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests, and respect for the rule of law including the decision-making authority of states and localities."
These economists note that Romney would:
Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.
End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.
Restructure regulation to end "too big to fail," improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.
Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.
Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.
Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.
In "stark contrast," Obama, according to the economists, "has failed to advance policies that promote economic and job growth, focusing instead on increasing the size and scope of the federal government, which increases the debt, requires large tax increases, and burdens business with many new financial and health care regulations."
42 months of unemployment above 8 percent, 8.2 million people working part-time who want full-time work, a record 88 million Americans not in the labor force, 1.5 percent GDP growth in the past quarter, more bad GDP numbers expected, a stagnant housing market, $5 trillion in new debt, the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating, 38 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, 45 million Americans on food stamps, food prices continuing to increase dramatically, the poverty level likely to rise to the highest level in nearly fifty years The recession that ended three years ago this summer has been followed by the feeblest economic recovery since the Great Depression.. " " and this means the plan "worked? The shine is off the Hope and Change, it's now just Hype and Blame, so you'll be going away come this November. Maybe you can get your old job back as a Community Organizer, best stick to something you know how to do!
President Obama in Roanoke Virginia July 13, 2012 'If You've Got a Business -- You Didn't Build That. Obama to Joe the Plumber, "I want to spread the wealth around." Obama: "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors." ~ Barack Obama (Dreams From My Father.) Obama, Commie mother, commie father, commie grandparents, commie mentor, commie friends ...... commie Barack. Not too difficult to figure this out.
Election2012 Capitalism or Socialism. Your choice.
milt1007, you gave yourself, and the 'economists', away with your 7:47 post.
Ultra right wing extremism is dangerous to our country, and our freedom!