Yuval Levy of the right wing American Enterprise Institute has written a op ed piece for the New York Times that starts out with a beautifully phrased defense of Social Security and Medicare as “an act of intergenerational gratitude and generosity” that he regards as laudable and necessary but then ends by endorsing a plan to end Social Security as we have known it and substituting a universal benefit set just above the poverty line. He doesn’t even suggest the possibility of survivor and disability benefits. The right wing never discusses survivor and disability benefits. They don’t fit into their Social Security “reform” schemes. Levy goes on about how a universal benefit set just above the poverty line plan lifts a few seniors out of poverty. He doesn’t mention that this plan would mean a dramatic cut in benefits for most. His idea for a voluntary defined contribution plan on top of his version of “Social Security” hardly changes things. At best, that’s a retirement crap shoot compared with the actual “security” in Social Security not to mention that a vast number, probably most, workers wouldn’t make the voluntary contributions.
In its own way this may be the most disgusting piece of right wing anti-Social Security propaganda I’ve ever seen. He must think that we’re all fools. This idiotic plan would destroy Social Security and lead to riots in the streets. Levy can dress up his rhetoric with paeans about intergenerational obligations all he wants but his hostility to the very concept of Social Security is obvious. The plan is simple. Transform “Social Security” into something that is widely despised, then end it. That’s the aim of every right wing plan for Social Security “reform.”
I think if the disabled had their safety net pulled from under them, not only would there be lawsuits wanting their money back for a program they paid into, but it would send the country into chaos. Wouldn't that look good on the world stage? Streets full of disabled people suing the country?
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you. As SSDI has evolved over generations, it has become the default protection for a majority of Americans. While originally designed for the elderly in the 1930s when life expectancy was much shorter than now, it has withstood the test of time. There does need to be reform to stabilize the program, but it must be bipartisan and widely supported. As to raising the retirement age, the GOP should consider the protests in France. Taking an ax to Social Security as it is now in place would be political suicide. Seniors and those of us close to retirement stay aware and vote.
ReplyDeleteWho is Yuval Levy? Oh, you mean Yuval Levin? Okay, WHO? Okay?
ReplyDeleteI think Mr. Levin's plan is about as likely as Bernie Sanders's plan. It's going to take political courage and compromise to get a plan that will pass Congress. Meaning, it's far more likely than not that Congress will wait until we're at the brink of dusaster before doing ANYTHING. But, working something out now will cause less pain in the long run.
To talk intelligibly about life expectancy in the 1930s, you need to pull infant and childhood mortality out of the equation. After that, adult life expectancy was not nearly so low.
ReplyDeleteSocial Security retirement is the default, because the far right has brainwashed Americans to despise unions and expect no private pensions. The money that might've contributed toward such pensions has been diverted to outrageous executive compensation plans.
At the same time, the cost of living has skyrocketed. Yes, people afforded single family homes after the second world war. But good luck to younger folks now, as hedge funds buy those up and skew the market. Education and health care has also gotten prohibitively expensive.
Americans get the government they deserve. In France, the general public won't tolerate the BS whining of their elites. Here it's less clear, where people have continuously voted against their own self interest since Reagan.
This is actually not theoretically a terrible proposal for fundamental reform if we could trust that one party would not eviscerate the system at the soonest possible opportunity.
ReplyDeleteThis is basically the Nordic model that certain Scandinavian countries have in place. Basically, there is a flat rate benefit based on residency and paid out of general government revenues and a mandatory occupational pension system (like a mandatory 401k) on top of that. That way, nobody lives under the poverty line, but there are opportunities to build additional retirement savings through the occupational pension. Another benefit is that there is little to no administration required because it's a simple, flat rate benefit.
The problem? If you switch to general government revenues, Republicans in Congress will strangle the benefit over time through a thousand cuts, as we have seen time and again.
@1:56 - how do you define voting for one's own "self interest." Most likely that is voting for the person who promises you the most - without any regard as to how it will be paid for. That is the way a teenager thinks - their parents are an ATM that will never run out of money. Adults know that bills have to be paid. If we continue to vote only for "self interest" we may soon find that there is no one left to pay the bill. You can ask Venezuela how that worked out. Voting for "self interest" is just another way to say vote for the person who promises to give you more money. Whatever happened to "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."
ReplyDeleteUnder the eight years of the Eisenhower administration, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent. It's easy to claim that outsize financial rewards are merited while you're benefitting, and that poverty and limited opportunity are also deserved. But studies don't support that, and now socioeconomic mobility is now better in Europe than in the U.S. Decades-long tax policy favoring the super rich has led to increasing dysfunction in our economic system, with a narrower middle class unable to buffer the wild swings engendered by the greed and amoral self interest of the super rich. But don't worry about that. I'm sure that living in a tent city will be amazing, if your luck and obsequious support of income inequality doesn't end up favoring you.
DeleteThe French Senate on Saturday night adopted President Emmanuel Macron’s pension reform plan, whose key initiative is to raise the retirement age by two years to 64.
ReplyDeleteOne hundred and ninety-five members of the upper house of the French Parliament voted for the legislation, with 112 against.
So yeah there is that.
Seems that winning their conservative majority Senate is the least of the coming challenges... Wonderful to watch Labor actually fight back
Deletehttps://apnews.com/article/france-retirement-age-vote-pension-reform-f702068e516cbba99b52f3e148b626e9
Can we please reach an accord where Social Security is off the table for "enhancements" aka cuts? So many people rely on that check every month to survive. Unless we want to go back to poor farms and Alms Houses, leave the program alone-unless you want to provide more of a benefit to the poor, disabled, and elderly.
ReplyDeleteWhy not make it an independent entity overseen by a commission comprised of one delegate from each state legislature. The 50 delegates would then select a smaller governing board. The taxes could be collected by the states and forwarded to the program. This would take it out of the hands of Congress and the President. Just an independent retirement program that is no longer part of the federal budget. Of course, those career, life-long congressman and senators will never give up that power.
ReplyDeleteMacron just ignored everything, used executive powers and BOOM! Increase.
ReplyDeleteYou all have not figured it out in all this time. You only have the power that they give your. It is an illusion, you are owned.