TIME GOES BY | Social Security: Doing It All Over Again

by Ronni Bennett

In December 2004, soon after George W. Bush had been re-elected president, I began what became a year-long series of posts about Social Security – 23 in all – covering its beginnings, its success over many decades and refuting the lies Bush and his minions told as they traveled the 50 states through 2005, intent on fulfilling Bush's campaign promise to privatize Social Security.

During those many months, Time Goes By readers responded magnificently to my repeated appeals and exhortations to sign petitions, write or telephone their representatives in Congress, and to post Social Security stories on their own blogs.

In the end, Bush lost and we elderbloggers played a small but important role in the nation's overwhelming rejection of privatization. It seemed to be over and done with, so much so that a couple of years ago, I removed the link in the right sidebar to that long series of posts.

It turns out that I was premature in doing so and now we need to do it all over again.

In the wake of our disastrous (and ongoing) recession, bank bailouts, housing crash and record deficits caused by unending wars and tax cuts for the rich and corporations, hardly a Republican alive in this midterm election campaign has not called for cuts to Social Security and/or its privatization. Some want to eliminate it altogether.

And it is not only Republicans. Some blue dog Democrats have joined the Republicans, and President Obama, although he has said he opposes privatization, seems waffle-y. As James Ridgeway at Unsilent Generation pointed out recently:

“It was Obama who set in motion the Fiscal Commission, supposedly to study the deficit but in fact, as just about everyone in Washington knows, to pare entitlements, cutting Medicare and Social Security.

“Originally, this commission was thought ready to propose lifting the limit at which one could draw Social Security from 62 to 67. Now scuttlebutt is that the entry age should be 70.
“Our supposedly 'socialist' president has placed the country’s premier social program in the hands of Alan Simpson, a Republican crank who views old people as the new welfare queens.”

William Greider, writing at LaborNotes last August, puts an even finer point on President Obama's involvement in trashing Social Security:

“Barack Obama is actively collaborating with this conservative ploy. He created a presidential commission on deficit reduction, stacked with conservative deficit hawks from both parties. They will not reveal their recommendations until after this fall’s election — too late for voters to push back.

“Obama is playing coy himself, but his aides have made clear his intentions. Social Security is the sacrificial lamb. It will be offered up to Republicans to get them to make a deal on taxes. The tax cuts for the wealthy enacted in the Bush era are set to expire, but Republicans and many Democrats are loath to let that happen.”

First they took everyone's savings – 401(k)s, IRAs and other investments – in the great crash of 2008.

Then they took away the jobs – or cut salaries in half.

They followed up by confiscating homes.

And now they want the only thing of value anyone has left: Social Security.

No matter what happens in next Tuesday's election, whacking Social Security will be a high priority with the new Congress come January. We must oppose it.

No proposal (yet) dares speak of any changes to current Social Security benefits or for those older than 55. But our younger brethren deserve protection and who better than we elders, who know how important that program is to getting by in old age.

Privatizers and benefit cutters (the latter includes raising the retirement age) argue that workers can just save more for their retirement. Really? How? They've lost everything (see above list) and (personal opinion only) inflation is soon going to eat away at what little they have left.

So this is number 1 in a new series on Social Security at Time Goes By. I'm asking you to start now to educate yourself and those two articles from Ridgeway and Greider linked above are a good start. I will be posting details with plenty of links in the weeks and months to come to point you to the information you will need.

Meanwhile, some others are mounting a campaign against the war on Social Security. At Campaign for America's Future, there is a chart of Washington politicians, organized by state, who promise – or not - to oppose benefit cuts. Check out your state.

The Campaign for America's Future has also prepared a Promise to Protect Social Security letter [pdf] that is easy to print, sign and send to your representative either my snailmail or it can be scanned and attached to an email.

Raul Grijalva, a three-term Democratic congressman from Arizona's 7th District who is in a tight race to retain his seat, has sent a letter [pdf] to President Obama opposing cuts to Social Security. Follow that link to see the names of other congress members who have signed.

However much the Republican rank-and-file and tea partiers are inclined to vote against their own best interests, most of the country supports Social Security as is. Greider again:

“Whatever Washington claims to believe, the people have their own consensus about Social Security, shared by both young and old, left and right. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed (85 percent in an AARP poll) to reducing Social Security benefits to address the deficit. A strong majority (65 percent) thinks Social Security benefits should now be increased, given everything else that has happened to people.”

Will you join all those other people and me in keeping up the pressure on Washington until we win again?
TIME GOES BY | Social Security: Doing It All Over Again