Wall Street's Attack on Social Security

[bogus info]

Mark MillerAuthor of The Hard Times Guide to Retirement Security and syndicated columnist.
Posted: April 21, 2010 01:15 PM
Here Comes Wall Street's Attack on Social Security

Is Wall Street getting ready to come after your Social Security?

Two big summit meetings will be held in Washington next week to discuss ways of reducing the federal deficit. The first will be President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which holds its first meeting on April 27. The next day, Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson convenes a fiscal summit through his Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Peterson is a former CEO of the now-defunct Lehman Brothers and former chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He underwrites the foundation with his own funds -- and his agenda is no secret.

He sees the coming retirement of baby boomers as a threat to the economy and the federal budget. He wants aggressive cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well as the creation of a commission that would have legal authority to create a plan to reduce the deficit and then simply present it to Congress for an up or down vote -- no debates, no amendments.

much more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-mill ... 46019.html

[stock-me]

dont know what will they do next

[bogus info]

Ryan Grim
ryan@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting
Andy Stern: Invest Social Security Funds In Wall Street
First Posted: 06-30-10 04:05 PM | Updated: 06-30-10 04:05 PM

Andy Stern, a key member of the deficit commission, is pushing to invest a significant portion of the Social Security trust fund in private companies through the stock market, the former labor leader told HuffPost.

Stern, taking a break from one of the few public meetings of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, said that Social Security "needs to be, like any pension fund, brought back into balance."

There were several ways to bring the fund into balance, he said, but one that he favors consists of "investing some percentage of government money in the stock market, as they do in Canada. Not individual taxpayer money, but government money."

Stern said that Canada's retirement system invests roughly 15 to 20 percent of its funds in the market, a range he thought reasonable. "There are lots of mechanisms for governments to be prudent investors," he said.

Wall Street has long sought access to Social Security money and opponents of cutting Social Security have been closely watching Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union, worried that he may back privatization efforts.

more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/3 ... 31228.html

Read the comments. Opinions regarding this?

[kate520]

Jane hamshe, who used to date Andy Stern, calls the Peterson Commission the Catfood Commission.

I distrust almost every idea put forth about this. I don't want my SS to be used to line the pockets of the MOTU, and can't imagine how anyone can even consider putting our retirement savings into jeopardy like that.

[bogus info]

June 29, 2010 11:00 PM
Deficits, Social Security, and the American Public

By Benjamin I. Page and Lawrence R. Jacobs

Memo to Pete Peterson: Americans don't want cuts Social Security - and here's the proof.

Deficit-hawk and investment banker Pete Peterson has devoted a substantial part of his $2.8 billion fortune to pushing for cuts in entitlements like Social Security, in the name of deficit reduction. His Foundation lavishly funded the AmericaSpeaks "town hall" forums held on Saturday, the results of which will be presented to the national Deficit Commission this week -- purporting to tell what the American public thinks about various deficit-reduction options.

The AmericaSpeaks forums suffered from serious defects as measures of public opinion. Yet the results, perhaps to Peterson's surprise, correctly indicated that Americans are strongly committed to Social Security. Large majorities oppose cutting Social Security benefits, even for the sake of deficit reduction.

The AmericaSpeaks town halls failed to convene a representative sample of Americans: they opened their doors to self-selected political activists with extreme views, possibly hoping to draw Tea Party backers. Their intense emphasis on reducing budget deficits "primed" participants to focus on deficits rather than on the needs of retirees when evaluating Social Security policy. The information provided to participants was one-sided, speculative, and in some cases quite misleading: it overstated the "crisis" in Social Security funding, understated the current burden of payroll taxes on ordinary workers, and failed to convey the extent to which millions of retirees count on stable, dependable Social Security benefits. The policy options that were discussed tilted rightwards.

These town halls -- like deliberative forums in general -- should not be taken as accurate measures of "true" or "deliberative" public opinion. Carefully designed and carefully interpreted opinion surveys, based on representative samples from the whole country and carried out in natural settings rather than the artificial and manipulable "fish bowl" of town hall meetings, can do a much better job of revealing what the American public thinks.

Remarkably, however, AmericaSpeaks got lucky (or perhaps, from Peterson's point of view, unlucky.) Despite all the biases, on several issues town hall participants came up with opinions not very different from those that have been expressed by majorities of Americans in dozens of well-designed national surveys. Participants opposed cuts in Social Security benefits, insisting that benefits must be preserved when balancing the budget. They wanted to strengthen the economy, favoring the current stimulus bill (stalled in the Senate) by a margin of 51% to 38%. In order to reduce budget deficits, most favored cutting defense spending and enacting progressive tax measures: raising the payroll tax "cap" so that incomes over $106,800 are subject to the tax (85% in favor); raising high-end corporate and personal income taxes; and imposing new taxes on carbon and on securities transactions. Only on the Social Security retirement age did the results conspicuously stray from actual public opinion.

more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence- ... 30215.html

[bogus info]

Republicans And Democrats Lining Up Behind Major Changes To Social Security
Brian Beutler | July 7, 2010, 9:08
excerpts

Is there a new, bipartisan consensus forming on Capitol Hill about whether (and how) to scale back Social Security benefits? A surprising number of signs point to "yes" -- and that has many progressives looking ahead a few months to what they believe could become a serious fight.

Several of the most powerful members of the House -- Republicans and Democrats -- have recently voiced real support for the idea of raising the retirement age for people middle-aged and younger as part of a larger plan to reduce long-term deficits, inching closer to what not too long ago was the third rail of American politics.

The strongest backer of this plan is House Minority Leader John Boehner, who recently told a Pennsylvania newspaper, "I think raising the retirement age going out 20 years so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken."

There's one catch, though. Last week, Democrats included a rider to the supplemental war spending bill that will force the House to vote on a forthcoming fiscal reform plan, if the Senate passes it first. That package is being put together by President Obama's deficit and debt commission, and will be ready to go after the midterms. Pelosi had already pledged to give the package a vote, so perhaps nothing has really changed. But in a way, she also tied her own hands: if the Senate passes a broad tax-and-entitlement reform package at the end of this Congress and her own caucus is willing, she can't stop the Social Security reforms she thinks should come last.

Of course, that puts the onus on the Senate, which can't pass much of anything these days, especially if it includes tax hikes -- and any serious effort to pull the country back from the brink of fiscal crisis will have to include some of those. But if there's a fluke, or an unexpected decision on the part of 60 senators to hold hands and jump together, it could happen swiftly, with very little notice.

more here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... curity.php

emphasis mine

[bogus info]

Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting
Neel Kashkari, TARP Guru, Supports Cutting Entitlements, Citing 'Me-First' Attitude Of Beneficiaries
First Posted: 07-26-10 01:43 PM | Updated: 07-26-10 01:43 PM

Remember Neel Kashkari? Back during the financial crisis, Kashkari sat at the U.S. Treasury's Office of Financial Stability, where he was in charge of implementing the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- the fancy name for a wheelbarrow full of $700 billion in taxpayer money that went to revive the do-not-resuscitate banks of the world, which is exactly what those banks asked the government to do. Well, the whole experience made Kashkari terribly, terribly sad! So he went out into the woods to build himself a Cabin Of Emotions, where he could grieve over the fact that Washington, DC had lost the lustrous glamour that attracted him in the first place -- during the Iran-Contra hearings.

But since then, he was rescued from his doldrums by bond giant PIMCO, where he became its managing director of investment management. Now he's on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, with a message for the olds: STOP BEING SO "ME-FIRST" and let us cut your entitlements!

A nation's culture can have a profound impact on its competitiveness. Our shared beliefs in free markets, fair play and the rule of law inspire entrepreneurs to pursue their dreams and give global investors confidence to bring their money to America. These beliefs have passed from citizen to citizen, from generation to generation. They have strengthened over our history and brought an important competitive edge to the United States.

Hey, let's remember some basic things before we go any further, shall we? "Free markets" equals "too big to fail banks will never be allowed to fail." "Fair play" equals "bailing out these too big to fail banks when they nearly destroy the economy while small banks die by the hundreds." "Rule of law" equals "big banks using derivatives to get around capital rules." Okay? Moving on!

more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/2 ... 59423.html

emhasis mine

[bogus info]

Mike ElkLabor Journalist
Posted: August 24, 2010 12:35 PM
Tea Party Pushes Back Against Anti-Social Security K Street GOP

Daniel Webster is the former Florida State Senate Majority leader and a rising star within the GOP. The Republican National Committee handpicked him to run against progressive hero Congressman Alan Grayson in Florida. Webster seemed like the easy pick to win his party's primary to run against Grayson, but after recent comments in favor of cutting Social Security, his chances are now looking less likely.

Webster seems to have gotten himself in hot water with some of the Tea Party movements biggest backers -- senior citizens. Last week during a forum, Webster proposed cutting the regular Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increases for entitlement programs including Social Security. Webster's proposal would result in a 100 dollar per month cut for those on Social Security. Webster's proposal was so radical that none of the other six conservative candidates he was debating would explicitly call for any form of cuts whatsoever in Social Security. Webster was hounded in the press and by voters for his radical position.

As a result, Webster quickly changed his position, stating "I've never stated that Social Security benefits should be cut or reduced for those who are currently receiving benefits or those near retirement age." Despite the fact that in the debate he called for just that by saying all COLA adjustment for all entitlement programs (including Social Security) should be cut, Webster had to quickly backtrack because calling for cuts to Social Security is political suicide in a place like Florida.

Webster was pushed back by overwhelming public support for the program. Social Security recipients cannot be marginalized and stereotyped the way "welfare queens" are since we all have a family member that depends on Social Security. More than 52.5 million total beneficiaries receive Social Security, including 9.7 million disabled persons under age 65 and dependent family members, 6.4 million survivors of deceased workers, and 36.4 million retired workers and their families.

As a result of the widespread use of Social Security, 81% of the American public is opposed to cuts of any kind to Social Security, according to a recent poll. Even 59% of self-identified Tea Party supporters feel favorable towards politicians that support Social Security according to the same poll; thus, when GOP star Daniel Webster made comments denouncing Social Security, he immediately had to denounce cuts to Social Security because not even the Tea Party supports a position as radical as cutting Social Security.

more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elk/ ... 92663.html

[muldrake]

Mike ElkLabor Journalist
Posted: August 24, 2010 12:35 PM
Tea Party Pushes Back Against Anti-Social Security K Street GOP

Daniel Webster is the former Florida State Senate Majority leader and a rising star within the GOP. The Republican National Committee handpicked him to run against progressive hero Congressman Alan Grayson in Florida. Webster seemed like the easy pick to win his party's primary to run against Grayson, but after recent comments in favor of cutting Social Security, his chances are now looking less likely.

Bagger candidates seem to do things like this continually. It is hard to think of a single bagger candidate without a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease. This is why the baggers will never be a serious political movement, because they are completely tone-deaf in addition to being lunatics. Exactly how dumb and incompetent a politician do you have to be not to know that calling for Social Security cuts in Florida isn't going to fly?

What do you do when a bagger throws a pin at you? Run like hell! He has a grenade in his mouth!

[bogus info]

Ryan Grim
ryan@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting
Alan Simpson: Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits'
First Posted: 08-24-10 07:32 PM | Updated: 08-24-10 07:36 PM

Alan Simpson believes that Social Security is "like a milk cow with 310 million tits," according to an email he sent to the executive director of National Older Women's League Tuesday morning. Simpson co-chairs the deficit commission, which is considering various proposals to cut Social Security benefits.

Simpson's email, which OWL chief Ashley Carson released publicly, (PDF) was sent in response to an April blog post Carson wrote for the Huffington Post. Carson criticized Simpson for repeatedly describing his Social Security opponents as "Pink Panthers," arguing that the description had sexist connotations.

His email is peppered with exclamation points and condescension. At one point he urged Carson to read a certain graph, "which I hope you are able to discern if you are any good at reading graphs."

Simpson concludes by implying that leading a major organization dedicated to the interests of middle-aged and elderly women is not "honest work."

more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/2 ... 93277.html