Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security's Future? (Hint: It's Not Republicans)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:28 AM
Original message
Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security's Future? (Hint: It's Not Republicans)
Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security's Future? (Hint: It's Not Republicans)
NewDeal 2.0 / By Marshall Auerback

August 16, 2010 | Social Security remains one of the greatest achievements of the Democratic Party since its creation 75 years ago. Although Republicans have historically fulminated against the program (Ronald Reagan once likened it as something akin to “socialism”), they have actually made little headway in touching this sacred “third rail” in American politics. President Bush pushed for partial privatization of the program in 2005, but the proposal gained no policy traction (even within his own party) because Social Security continues to be hugely popular with American voters. It’s a universal program that benefits all Americans, not a government handout to a few privileged corporations.

Which is why it’s odd that Democrats seem almost embarrassed to continue to champion the legacy of FDR. The party frets about long-term deficits and the corresponding need to “save” Social Security from imminent bankruptcy and, in doing so, opens the gate to radical cuts in entitlements that will do nothing but further destroy incomes and perpetuate our current economic malaise. It is true that some Republicans have signed on to the idea of privatization, notably a proposal championed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. But only a handful of GOP lawmakers have actively embraced the measure and, in the aftermath of the worst shock to the financial system since the Great Depression, many Republican lawmakers would just as soon see the idea forgotten.

So why don’t the Democrats leave well enough alone? Why bother even setting up “bipartisan commissions” to discuss the issue of Social Security? At the risk of sounding like one of those ungrateful members of the “Professional Left”, whom Robert Gibbs recently decried, I note that it was President Obama who most recently re-opened this issue by setting up a commission on reducing long term budget deficits and dealing with the long term issue of entitlements, including Social Security. In the Commission’s remit, nothing is off the table, including Social Security and Medicare. (Of course, given that one of the members is a director of Honeywell, it’s hard to envisage any suggestions of defense cuts). I also note that according to the Washington Post, “Democrats said Simpson and Bowles are uniquely equipped to blaze a path out of the fiscal wilderness — and to forge bipartisan consensus on a plan likely to require painful tax increases as well as program cuts.” No mention of Republicans getting on board. This is self-immolation, plain and simple. And Obama wonders why voters remain unhappy?

Now that the President has opened this Pandora’s Box, it is hard for him credibly to make the case, as he attempted to do in last Saturday’s weekly radio address, that “some Republican leaders in Congress want to privatize Social Security.” In fact, it is an idea enthusiastically embraced by a number of Wall Street Democrats who are funded with huge campaign contributions from Wall Street itself. (Candidate Obama received more money from Wall Street in 2008 than Hillary Clinton.) These contributors would be the Rubinites who for decades have played a huge role in allowing for greater financial leverage ratios, riskier banking practices, greater opacity, less oversight and regulation, consolidation of power in ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions that operated across the financial services spectrum (combining commercial banking, investment banking and insurance) and greater risk. Privatization of Social Security represents the last of the low hanging fruits for Wall Street. Who better to provide this to our captains of the financial services industry than their major political benefactors in the Democratic Party?


The issue of privatization is germane when one considers the members of the Commission approved by the President. There are questions of possible conflicts of interest. As James Galbraith has noted, the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has been one of the leading campaigners to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is co-chaired by Erskine Bowles, a current Director at North Carolina Life Insurance Co (annuity products are a competitor to Social Security and would almost certainly be beneficiaries of the partial privatization). Mr. Bowles’ wife, Crandall Close Bowles, is on the Board of JP Morgan, and she is also on the “Business Council,” a 27 member group whose members include Dick Fuld, Jeff Immelt, Jamie Dimon and a plethora of other Wall Streeters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. Great commentary!
Proud to K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. k&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. another K&R
during the campaign, didn't Obama come out against another commission to study SS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R, thanks for posting..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. Just as only a Dem could swindle/fool people to bust unions (NAFTA),
It will take a traitorous/criminal Dem to steal SS.

They are hoping just enough people will have a false sense of security that it will be protected, just as the Dem leadership on NAFTA convinced the people they would 'protect' the American worker.

Its a cruel game being played on us. We have been sold out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. Instead of championing and supporting, dare I even say EXPANDING
SS, they are trying to find a way of destroying it.
SS should be a prized accomplishment, the people love it!
The group of con men will do their damnedest to kill us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. it's so CUTE when some people try to raise ire by lambasting "Republican" policies
that have "destroyed America"--war, tax breaks, slashing safety nets, outsourcing--when many of those policies were passed ONLY with Dem votes and 80% of which policies have been adopted by the current national leadership! but in the cheerleading bubble, the only way those policies could--ahem--"return" is a GOP victory in House or Senate. it's as hilariously and terrifyingly out of touch as calling Obama a socialist death-panel author.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
10. SS and reproductive rights: the last 2 "solid" Demo issues. Hah...
Years ago I said if the Democrats move against these 2 issues, it would spell the end of the Democratic Party as we have known it for the last 35 years; that period was spent in distancing the party from the "left," and with proving its fealty to CorpUSA. Yet, it held onto these 2 issues because their supporters were entrenched within the party, and because they still formed part of the party's dissolving electoral structure. Now, Obama has signaled that SS will be "reformed," and possible reproductive rights will be bargained with.

DUers need to seriously consider "taking over" the Party, or getting out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC