August 18, 2016

Reasons to vote Democratic despite Clinton: Social Security


Nearly two out of every three seniors rely on the Social Security for the majority of their income. If it did not exist, 44 percent of the elderly would live in poverty. Currently only 9 percent do.

As a member of Congress, Donald Trump’s vice presidential nominee Mike Pence was one of the biggest cheerleaders for George W. Bush’s privatization plans and other reforms that would have harmed the program.

As early as 2002, Pence spoke in the House of Representatives in favor of privatization. In 2005, after President Bush proposed reforms, he delivered speech after speech in favor of the proposal. He claimed at the time, “Social Security reform means keeping its promise in tact for seniors and all who choose to remain in the system. But Social Security reform also means offering a better deal to younger Americans in the form of voluntary personal accounts.”

A consistent theme of Pence’s was that privatization and other reforms would save the program from insolvency and protect seniors from future cuts. This was not true.

According to an analysis at the time from the Center for American Progress, such reforms would actually “worsen Social Security’s financial outlook.” In addition:

Furthermore, Bush’s privatization plan would have added “trillions of dollars” to the deficit, while only providing “limited” investment choices for seniors. Yet Pence enthusiastically supported this policy.

Paul Krugman wrote of Bush’s Social Security proposal, “Privatizing Social Security—replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts—won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.”


Tom Puckett said...

Again, voting for Clinton and some of the other down-ballot dems may be a fear based choice - the fear that Trump will be elected, mainly.

All the arguments to elect Clinton - in this case to preserve social security - would also be arguments for electing Jill Stein. She will preserve social security, too.

Here's her town hall last night on CNN:

Thanks, Tom

Anonymous said...

It was most recently Barry Obama who stated that Social Security was 'on the table'. Such has been the objective of Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project from the start---lest you forget, Sam, Rubin has been the Clintons economic guiding star and they've both been fully on board with the Hamilton Project's agenda.
A little memory aid for you:

Sam, you really are revealing yourself to be little more than second rate Democratic Party propagandist towing the conventional party line. Jesus, we're really disappointed
in you this cycle.