Obama Packs Commission w/ Social Security Looters

[j_b]

By Matthew Skomarovsky

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters

Obama has filled his new 'debt commission' with Wall Street insiders determined to gut Social Security

 

The most generous bank bailout in history has amplified Wall Street's considerable political influence, and the economic implications of this democractic calamity go well beyond bloated bonuses. Over the past year, the financial propaganda machine has set its sights on Social Security, launching a massive assault on one of the nation's most important economic programs. But rather than push back against the flawed economic assumptions of the nation's financial elite, President Barack Obama appears to be advancing their arguments, and is now poised to repeat George W. Bush's politically perilous efforts to gut Social Security.

A decade of wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the fallout from Wall Street's housing bubble have almost tripled U.S. public debt since 2001, from $5 trillion to $14 trillion. Big, scary numbers like this, along with carefully timed downgrade warnings from Wall Street's obedient rating agencies and continuing worries about the financial collapse of Greece, Portugal and other nations have changed the political climate in Washington, breathing new life into decades-old schemes to slash Social Security and Medicare entitlements.

 

And defending Social Security does indeed sound like yesterday's issue — a fight the people won when they defeated Bush's attempt to privatize the system in 2005. Our Social Security program is currently solvent through 2037, while millions of Americans are unemployed, millions more are losing their homes, and still millions more are struggling to meet soaring health insurance costs after watching their retirement accounts dwindle in the financial collapse. Would the entitlement wolves -- primarily Wall Street executives who stand to reap billions from Social Security privatization -- really have the gall to go after Social Security now? In a word, yes.

 

Global deficit jitters and U.S. political uncertainties associated with Scott Brown's surprise Senate victory in Massachusetts have helped fuel the fire at propaganda campaigns like IOUSA and the Wall Street tycoon-funded Fiscal Times. The White House is now either on the budgetary defensive, or exploiting the moment to exact unpopular entitlement cuts it was already preparing to make. Regardless, this week's New York Times' front page confirms that "reforming" Social Security could very well be a top priority for Obama in 2010. According to anonymous White House officials and budget analysts, because the Medicare cut under the health care reform bill "effectively takes those fast-growing entitlement programs off the table for deficit reduction … [social Security] now stands as the likeliest source of the sort of large savings needed to bring projected annual deficits to sustainable levels."

 

In other words, because rapidly rising Medicare costs were not effectively contained by health care reform -- it would have hurt the health care industry -- slowly rising Social Security costs will instead have to get the axe. Instead of weaning corporations—banks, insurance companies, war contractors—off the federal teat, the administration is seriously considering punishing seniors.

 

[..]

 

A foregone conclusion?

 

Andy Stern, president of SEIU, is Obama's only pick out of six who is sure to oppose Social Security cuts. Everyone else is likely open to slashing.

 

For the commission to reach an agreement, its Democrats will have to win the support of at least two Republicans, which will be nearly impossible unless spending cuts are among its proposals. That Obama’s picks are so amenable to, if not gunning for, some form of benefits cuts suggests the White House is indeed seeking such a "grand bargain" from the commission, not a stalemate. The odds are slim, especially given the commission’s history, that five of the 10 Democrats would defy the White House to kill such a bargain.

 

As the New York Times confirms, in establishing the group Obama has once again adopted a course favorable to his economic advisers and their Wall Street friends over the objections of his political team. How much of the usual looting this will involve remains to be seen. They seem to be proceeding carefully. Earlier, following Obama's recent spending freeze announcement, an anonymous official told the Times that spending cuts would start with earmarks in order to earn goodwill with the public, and then move on to more "popular entitlement programs."

 

"By helping to create a new atmosphere of fiscal discipline, it can actually also feed into debates over other components of the budget," the official said, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity.

 

Which administration official might this be? Sadly, it could be just about anyone, as Obama’s economics team is dominated by Wall Street-friendly advisers, most of whom are close friends and proteges of Robert Rubin, and have been calling (pdf) for Social Security reductions for years. The March 23 Gray Lady front-pager mentions two of them, Orszag and Jason Furman, along with associate budget director Jeffrey Liebman, as likely masterminds. Both Orszag and Furman followed Rubin into Obama's inner circle from the Hamilton Project. Liebman too has a history of Social Security mischief – he was on the commission under Clinton.

 

If President Obama wants to get heavy handed about the deficit, he could start by putting an end to the disastrous and unpopular schemes that created it – the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the trillions of dollars funneled to Wall Street. Unfortunately, it looks like Obama has taken the bankers' bait: the only people disciplined by his fiscal retreat will be millions of senior citizens with the gall to believe that society should guarantee them a decent standard of living.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/146183/obama_packs_debt_commission_with_social_security_looters?page=entire

[StevenSeagal]

Those lazy seniors. More of the self-entitlement crowd just like KK and FW noted. They just want to retire and have someone else pay their way. Lazy fucks.

[rob]

they should just privatize social security, because the private financial industry is beyond reproach.

 

thank god Bush wasn't able to accomplish that. Can you even imagine? Shudder.

[G-spotter]

obviously the best response to these end times is shoot a cop. jesus wants you to do it.

[prole]

Those lazy seniors. More of the self-entitlement crowd just like KK and FW noted. They just want to retire and have someone else pay their way. Lazy fucks.

 

Indeed. It is unfortunate that even the flesh of these unproductive units is currently ill-suited to nourish our service drones. It is therefore imperative that our R&D labs set to work immediately to engineer new forms that maximize the nutritional output from the aged husks.

 

 

[G-spotter]

don't be stupid, nutritional food doesn't sell. the market demands that all food contain a minimum of nutrition

[StevenSeagal]

The US Military? I think me and Billy Bob can take 'em.

[StevenSeagal]

Those lazy seniors. More of the self-entitlement crowd just like KK and FW noted. They just want to retire and have someone else pay their way. Lazy fucks.

 

Indeed. It is unfortunate that even the flesh of these unproductive units is currently ill-suited to nourish our service drones. It is therefore imperative that our R&D labs set to work immediately to engineer new forms that maximize the nutritional output from the aged husks.

 

 

 

 

Cue KKK "Pot kettle black" comment...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Those lazy seniors. More of the self-entitlement crowd just like KK and FW noted. They just want to retire and have someone else pay their way. Lazy fucks.

 

They put the money in themselves throughout their working life, and now want their own money back. Sorry, that's not "someone else paying their way".

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Those lazy seniors. More of the self-entitlement crowd just like KK and FW noted. They just want to retire and have someone else pay their way. Lazy fucks.

 

Indeed. It is unfortunate that even the flesh of these unproductive units is currently ill-suited to nourish our service drones. It is therefore imperative that our R&D labs set to work immediately to engineer new forms that maximize the nutritional output from the aged husks.

 

 

Soylent Green?

[prole]

Yes. Clearly the Fordist/Trade Union model of capitalist production ran its course a while ago and the Reaganite mode that ushered in productivity gains while vastly increasing inequality and leaving a largely redundant population is in its death throes. This leaves us in a conundrum: How are we going to eat all these people AND make them tasty as a motherfucker? I'm open to your franchise ideas.

[rob]

Well, we've been fattening them up on McDonald's and Coca-Cola and American Idol has been keeping them sedentary, so they should be pretty well-marbled by now. Tasty!

[StevenSeagal]

Those lazy seniors. More of the self-entitlement crowd just like KK and FW noted. They just want to retire and have someone else pay their way. Lazy fucks.

 

They put the money in themselves throughout their working life, and now want their own money back. Sorry, that's not "someone else paying their way".

 

but, but...it's another socialist entitlement program!!! Are you going Red on us?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

but, but...it's another socialist entitlement program!!!

 

 

no, it isn't.

 

[rob]

 

but, but...it's another socialist entitlement program!!!

 

 

no, it isn't.

 

Hmm, can you explain to me how a government-run retirement system that everybody is FORCED to contribute to, and which pays many people more than they contributed to (disability, survivor benefits, etc) NOT an example of a socialized government program?

 

And if that's the case, then why is our health-care reform bill so "socialistic?"

 

Seems like a weird double-standard.

Edited March 29, 2010 by rob

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

but, but...it's another socialist entitlement program!!!

 

 

no, it isn't.

 

Hmm, can you explain to me how a government-run retirement system that everybody is FORCED to contribute to, and which pays many people more than they contributed to (disability, survivor benefits, etc) NOT an example of a socialized government program?

 

And if that's the case, then why is our health-care reform bill so "socialistic?"

 

Seems like a weird double-standard.

 

socialist *entitlement* program vs. "socialized government program"

 

[Jim]

Oh. I was confused for a minute. I thought the Federal Government administered the Social Security System.

[Jim]

They put the money in themselves throughout their working life, and now want their own money back. Sorry, that's not "someone else paying their way".

 

Actually, no, that's not how it works. The younger generation is paying for those that receive the benefits. No one is socking away money for their own SS benefits.

[Hugh Conway]

KK just likes to argue

[prole]

Social Security was vehemently opposed as a "Commie plot" as single payer health care is today. Just another example of the Right fulfilling its traditional role as History's Buffoons.

[AlpineK]

Here's an old view of Socialism

 

Socialism Label

 

When the FDR administration proposed a national Social Security system, the Republican Party vehemently opposed it. When the Johnson administration proposed a national Medicare system, the Republican Party vehemently opposed it. Both programs were labeled as Socialism and strongly denounced but, which now, very few people would want eliminated.

 

If Fairweather an KK are so opposed to health care legislation then it would logically follow they would be against Social Security and Medicare.

 

I'm afraid logic and clear thinking is beyond Teabaggers. Right now I imagine quite a few stockpiling guns and muttering about the 2nd Amendment.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

They put the money in themselves throughout their working life, and now want their own money back. Sorry, that's not "someone else paying their way".

 

Actually, no, that's not how it works. The younger generation is paying for those that receive the benefits. No one is socking away money for their own SS benefits.

 

You put money in as you work with the promise of getting it back with interest. How the government delivers that (spending your money in the interim and paying it off with younger taxpayer's contributions) is irrelevant.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Here's an old view of Socialism

 

Socialism Label

 

When the FDR administration proposed a national Social Security system, the Republican Party vehemently opposed it. When the Johnson administration proposed a national Medicare system, the Republican Party vehemently opposed it. Both programs were labeled as Socialism and strongly denounced but, which now, very few people would want eliminated.

 

If Fairweather an KK are so opposed to health care legislation then it would logically follow they would be against Social Security and Medicare.

 

I'm afraid logic and clear thinking is beyond Teabaggers. Right now I imagine quite a few stockpiling guns and muttering about the 2nd Amendment.

 

I am opposed to those big gov't programs. If I had my druthers anyone could opt out of Social Security and take care of his/her own retirement.

 

But social security is not the same as a big gov't entitlement program where you tax one set of people and apply that money exclusively to another.

 

[Hugh Conway]

But social security is not the same as a big gov't entitlement program where you tax one set of people and apply that money exclusively to another.

 

erm, that's exactly what SS is which is why it needed "reform" under Dear Leader W

[JayB]

They put the money in themselves throughout their working life, and now want their own money back. Sorry, that's not "someone else paying their way".

 

Actually, no, that's not how it works. The younger generation is paying for those that receive the benefits. No one is socking away money for their own SS benefits.

 

You put money in as you work with the promise of getting it back with interest. How the government delivers that (spending your money in the interim and paying it off with younger taxpayer's contributions) is irrelevant.

 

I agree that's the way it is supposed to work in theory, but I'm not terribly confident that's the way it'll work going forward.

 

I'm hoping that someone, somewhere, is looking at debt forecasts that incorporate a Monte Carlo simulation of future yields on Treasury debt but I doubt it....

 

"Treasury Market Fires Warning Shot

 

By RICHARD BARLEY

 

Jitters in the Treasury market: a technical blip or evidence that U.S. fiscal woes are finally starting to test the patience of bond investors? Last week bond auctions struggled, 10-year yields surged to 3.88% from 3.7%, and 10-year yields rose above 10-year swap rates for the first time in living memory—all indicators of market stress.

 

Fiscal worries certainly triggered the initial market wobble. The passage of the $940 billion health-care bill reignited concerns about the U.S. deficit, pushing yields up and narrowing the gap to swap rates, which tends to be driven by expectations of government bond supply. A negative spread could indicate lack of demand for Treasurys or doubts over U.S. creditworthiness.."

 

If this was all about promoting retirement savings then putting the same money in private accounts that you couldn't touch prior to retirement without massive tax penalties would do the trick.

 

The extremely risk averse could easily simulate Social Security like returns by investing their contributions in CD's and converting the balance to an annuity upon retirement.

 

I'd much rather have a system like that and use general tax revenues to take care of the disabled, indigent, etc.