If ever there were a ready made political campaign issue guaranteed to help the Democrats win in November and perhaps even put them over the top wouldn't this be it? It's the political equivalent of a Quarter Pounder with cheese, bay-bee!
C'mon people, start getting more Republicans on record about this. Do it on the local, Congressional District level. It's a clear winner.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 70
What exactly is Social Security? Well, it is a program by which civil servants borrow money from people who have to work to age 67 at a 2.5% rate so they can invest it at 8.5% to fund a retirement age of 55 or less for themselves.
No single group has done better at accumulating wealth than civil servants. Institutional investors, like civil service pension funds, control 56% of all corporate assets. Just the civil servants in California have over $1 Trillion in corporate assets, that is Trillion with a "T".
Just imagine if EVERYONE could have their retirement vested in a civil service pension fund!!!
I must admit that repeating lies until they become the truth has worked for the Dems with the economy and Iraq. Time will tell if they can make this one work as well.
Best regards, Ben
As a centrist I believe that the self proclaimed mandate showed the country where his motivation lies. His fiscal irresponsibility embarrasses his Harvard degree. His quagmire magnifies his inability as a leader. The Republican Party has faithfully followed him down this rocky road and share the failings of his administration.
Yet the only thing the Dumb-acrates can say is "We can do better". Well with that kind of thinking and strategy the Neo-Cons have nothing to worry about in November.
McGavick says benefits must be guaranteed for current beneficiaries and those nearing retirement. He does not support privatization or a phasing-out of Social Security. But confidence in the system is broken. He would give younger workers the option of placing their benefits in voluntary personal accounts controlled by the federal government. This would help restore confidence in the system and ensure its solvency.
That's a carve out, a phase out, and a serious dimunition of social security. You can call it a lie all you want, but it's true.
He's sort of an expert at dishing out false information and utter nonsense, actually.
"I must admit that repeating lies until they become the truth has worked for the Dems with the economy and Iraq."
Oh, I'd LOVE to see what these are. Share these "lies" with us, please, oh special annointed one!
If only that were true.
Borrowing from Social Security at 2.5% is the means of financing a lion's share of government programs. The primary reason that the Democrats oppose a partial Social Security privatization is that it would deny them the monetary fuel to employ their cashcow constituency.
In other words, Social Security is a cheap form of borrowing to finance government spending, the bulk of which is Social Spending.
Capice?
You still have not addressed the thorny issue of the Democrats opposing the investment of a portion of Social Security in the same capital markets that have done so well for their primary constituency.
I would appreciate your thought on that matter.
This is an abomination, created by years of republican borrow and spend policies. When the metal hits the pavement, the SS funds that wingnuts have stolen for their corporate welfare programs will have to be produced. Sorry. Try again.
No hai capito.
I've been an asset manager for ten years. I literally manage millions of dollars and you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know what the bond market is? Do you know what the Fed Funds rate is? Do you know how much in US Treasuries are held overseas? That's where the money is coming from to finance our spending binge. And while we are at it, can you explain to me why we have an $800,000,000,000 a year current account deficit and why we didn't have one when Clinton was president?
And the idea that people should be allowed to invest a portion of the SS$ in private accounts is the worst idea imaginable. It's been an utter failure in the UK and in Chile.
As to Social Security funding social programs: wrong again. Read Clark Kent's comment and remember that the defense budget is $500 billion, not including the war in Iraq.
To paraphrase someone else: consider the lie in your own teeth before accusing others of fibbing. Dems lying about Iraq has "worked"? By what measure?
Dems lying about the economy has "worked"? Tell us how.
"He does not support privatization or a PHASING-OUT of Social Security"
And you say that's a phase-out? How is that?
Back to the Clinton years, he borrowed from the SS fund assuming the economy would be robust for the next 20 years. It wasn't.
If you're going to use the $8 billion number for Bush use the proper number for Clinton, a $500 billion deficit.
Clinton did not borrow from the SS fund. Does anyone remember the whole LOCK-BOX debate we had in this country? And John, you obviously cannot read: I wrote $800 billion a year current account deficit, not a federal budget deficit. They are two very different things. Proving, once again, that most people don't know what they are talking about.
Finally, just because someone says they don't support 'privatization' doesn't mean they aren't lying.
The fact is Republicans have wanted to phase-out, privatize and get rid of Social Security since Franklin Roosevelt signed the program into law. Don't pretend that isn't the truth.
Because, they're republicans. If they weren't pathological liars, they'd be called "democrats."
Yes, it was Al Gores campaign. Why would He campaign about something that already exists?
> And John, you obviously cannot read: I wrote $800 billion a year current account deficit, not a federal budget deficit.
My mistake, but the point is still stands, Clinton didn't have a surplus.
> Finally, just because someone says they don't support 'privatization' doesn't mean they aren't lying.
You can't start a discussion quoting the Treasury Secretary and then claim you know he's lying unless you can prove you read minds. That is why I gave it a 1. I thought the ratings were for accuracy and quality. This article is a statement that is opposite of what the link states. If I was wrong please advise so I don't make the same mistake again.
> The fact is Republicans have wanted to phase-out, privatize and get rid of Social Security since Franklin Roosevelt signed the program into law. Don't pretend that isn't the truth.
I've never met or heard of a Republican that wanted to eliminate it. They all want to fix it because if we don't it will eliminate itself.
SSJ:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments
Clark:
That's funny, it's good to see your lighter side.
Why do I have to explain the NASDAQ Stock Bubble an asset manager?
Can you explain the effects of capital losses on tax revenue?
But then civil servants (the core of the Democratic Party) are heavly invested in private accounts and they retire in their early 50's.
Odd how that is bad for everyone else but them, now isn't it?
My mistake, but the point is still stands, Clinton didn't have a surplus.
What planet are you from? The last two years of Clinton's presidency we had a surplus. Quit lying aout this stuff.
Why is it not odd that credit is given to Clinton for balancing the budget but blame for the leap in federal revenue is given to Greenspan?
Regardless, "Clinton's" surplus was a mirage caused by a spike of irrational exuberance in the stock market, the precipitious drop in tax revenues and the subsequent deficits that followed were the result of a slide down the back of the same spike.
I do have to chuckle though when I hear liberals howl about deficits, I do not see them proposing cuts in the mountain of spending upon which the snow cap of deficit rests.
By the way, it would be interesting to hear your opinion regarding the fantastic success of civil servants pension funds. Perhaps you can explain why they get to retire in the mid-50's when investment in the capital markets is such a bad idea.
Your article seemed to express concern about the privatization of Social Security. You seem to feel that would be a bad thing, a position held by most Democrats. The irony of that fear is that the core of the Democratic Party, civil servants, has done better than anyone else from investments in the financial markets.
Why is it great for civil servants but bad for the rest of the county?
Obviously you fear addressing the reason that the core constituency of the Democratic Party can retire on generous pensions in their mid 50's while everyone else is required to work to age 67 to collect a more meager pension. The obvious reason for this asymmetry is that Social Security funds are invested at about 2.5% while teachers, social workers and bureaucrats enjoy an average 5% to 8% return from investments in the private sector.
You are obviously embarrassed having to discuss Social Security privatization within this context.
I can understand your reluctance.
It's just not as black and white and easy as you think it is. And I am not reluctant to discuss the issue at all with someone who knows what they are talking about. You obviously do not.
It's just a little bit more complicated than you think it is.
And while we are at it: do you know how much the asset managers charged New Jersey to managed the money, in toto after transactions costs etc. . . ? 4.5%.
Do you know how much Social Security costs to manage? .075%
You do the math and think who wants that social security money and why?
It's called fees. I know Wall Street. It's like a bnig fat pie they can't wait to get ahold of. And in the end the taxpayer will bail it all out because of corporate greed.
I prefer the imperfect system we have, thank you.
Quite the contrary.
However, I do detect in the last paragraph, the same problem that has afflicted civil service pension plans nationwide i.e. "benefit enhancements".
As for the party line argument of "fees", checking my deferred comp statments reveal the fees to be extremely reasonable.
Having raised children, I can appreciate your comparison of a kindergarden teacher to a paratrooper; but that is just a diversion from the main question of the spectacular financial success of public pensions.
A close look at public pension funding problems reveals an inability to keep up with rising "enhanced benefits" that civil servant unions and their lobbyists keep granting themseles through the political process.
The reality is that even poorly performing funds are a better deal than Social Security. For instance, a fund earning an annual return of 5% is in trouble if its "enhanced benefits" liabilities require a 7% return.
This is a dire state of affairs for the pensioneers and taxpayers.
The problem for the Democrats is that such a failing plan would STILL be returning double the rate of Social Security.
One has to ask why the Democrats are so adamant about denying the public what their public employee constituency enjoys? The answer lies in the ability to fund programs by borrowing from pensioneers at 2.5%.
You can cherry pick the information you want to fit your pet theories (wow, this sounds familiar), the fact is they aren't reality. Face it.
Did you not write the following sentense, "Because he had to pay a bond issue tht was taken out in the nineties by Christine Todd Whitman to fund an underfunded and underpeforming state retirement system based on market returns that was guaranteed by the state."?
When someone tells me that an underfunded an underpeforming state retirement system had to be propped up by bonds "taken out in the nineties", I begin looking for the event in the 1990's,
Do you think you can actually try to answer it this time instead of dancing and spinning away?
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
Could it be that the answer lies in the ability to fund federal social programs by borrowing from Social Security at 2.5%.
Why does a state take out a bond issue: to shore up finances. When the finances are shored up, the state gets good ratings. The bond issue was taken out in 1997, if memory serves me correctly. It was guaranteed by AMBAC, as well. It shored up the state pension system so Christine Todd Whitman could a.) run for Senate and then b.) run for president.
Again, it's very clear you no nothing about public finance. I relaly urge you to quit while you are ahead. You won't gain anything by persisting that hope trumps reality.
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
I have been asking you a very straight-forward question for three days and you have been spinning away from it any way you could.
First we heard about your "friends" who supposedly work "for the entity that manages civil employee's investments in New Jersey"
When I post a document from Wharton that contradicts your assertion, you dance around on dates.
When I quote your own words regarding the date, you dance off in another direction.
It is you who "don't know what you are talking about" as is obvious by anyone attempting to follow what you have written in this thread.
I have wasted enough time on a person who simply has no concept of personal integrity.
Stock Market Investing: Good Enough for Public Employee and Union Pension Funds
Bill Archer
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
The Honorable R. Glenn Hubbard
Columbia University
Both Republicans who want to see Social Security abolished.
Gee, funny that.
Facts, how inconvenient.
Do anything, say anything to avoid the question:
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
Answer: blame Democrats.
Do anything, say anything to avoid the question:
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
Answer: repeat the same line over and over again in the hope that fantasy will triumph over reality.
Do anything, say anything to avoid the question:
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
Sean, I will ask the question in another way, and maybe you can try to answer it.
How come an administrative assistant working for the a school board can retire at 58 on three times the pension as her counter-part who works to age 67 gets from Social Security?
Maybe your "friend" who "works for a entity" that works for a pension fund can help you answer that question.
Most of the corporate pensions that I am familiar with are either an assumed liability by the corporation rather than an investment fund or a 401K type investment managed by an outside entity and offered as a payroll deduction, sometimes with a matching contribution.
Oh yeah, and Greg, you owe me an apology about calling me a liar. Here's some info on New Jersey for you:
On June 19, more than 5,000 public employees rallied with Governor Corzine in favor of a state budget that strengthens pensions. On June 1, three Democratic legislators, including State Senator Steve Sweeney, called for a 15% reduction in state employee salary and benefits. The plan also included dozens of other givebacks by public employee unions. Senate Republicans have unveiled a plan to reform public employee pensions. The legislation proposes studying 401(k)-type retirement plans for new public workers, restricting pension calculations to one job, prohibiting pension boosting through large salary increases and banning public contractors from receiving pensions. The state pension shortfall is approaching $30 billion that began in 1994 when Republican Gov. Christie Whitman raided pensions to pay for a $1.2 billion tax cut for the wealthy. Whitman increased employees' contribution to the plan to 5 percent, and through a series of legal maneuvers, she and subsequent governors allowed the state to ride the stock market to cover its pension obligations, deferring payments into the plan.The state pensions director testified last fall that they had shortchanged the pension funds by $5.5 billion. Gov. John Corzine, a Democrat, submitted his annual budget on March 21 and included $1.3 billion for the pension system – but whether a sales tax to pay for it will pass remains unclear.
This outlines the exact scenario I wrote about earlier, Greg, a pension plan that was fudge and that a Republican politician hoped the markets would bail out. For a while it worked untilt he crash.
Look, you don't have to agree with my political views, but show my experience in life some respect. And don't throw aorund words like dishonest. It's rude. I jsut hope you are man enough to apologize for your disrepsectful behavior.
After reading all the comments made on this article, to this point, you have my sympathy. It's amazing how many of the comments have misquoted what you have said, or responded to something you didn't say.
But, then again, that's the way we as a nation respond to everything these days. Have you noticed that fact- based debate is all but obsolete ?
Debaters either misqoute facts, or make up facts to fit the argument. And why shouldn't they ? We as a nation have totally abandoned fact checking as a part of our political system, and don't both parties love the fact that we have !
We have actually gotten to the point that calling one's opponent a "liar" is considered an answer worthy of winning a debate.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats intend to campaign on fact-based platforms, they both intend to win by convincing as many voters as possible that their opponent is a "liar", not with facts, but by simply repeating it over and over again.
Anyone care to call me a liar on this point ? Anyone care to offer facts that back up their claim if they do choose to call me a liar ?
From TRF Benefits Handbook
Notice: The Rule Of 80.....in Minnesota, we have the rule of 90. 80 is extremely generous.
With the Rule Of 80, an administrative assistant starting with a school board at the age of 22 is eligible for retirement at age 51
For instance: From the Wharton article that I linked upthread:
From your own union document, we find the following abuses:
- The ability to double and triple-dip as referenced by the complaint that the state is "restricting pension calculations to one job". It is VERY common for public employees to retire under the Rule of 80 or 90 in their early 50's, then move over to the county or city or state to collect another pension.
- Salary boosting...as referenced by "prohibiting pension boosting through large salary increases".
- And the empty suited contrators as referenced by "and banning public contractors from receiving pensions."
I never called you a liar. I quoted a source from Wharton that contradicted your assertions.
I think you need to apologize for demanding an apology from someone who provided a document that contradicted your assertions.
I have looked into it and I did indeed find a reference to a bonding issue. Here it is Lawmakers ponder pensions
I have no problem with the facts.
Sean, I find you an extremely dishonest person who would say anything to pretend that he is making a partisan point.
Where I come from, what you wrote is the same as calling me a liar.
And again, you can spin the statistics any way you want to. The fact is you already have a preconceived notion of what the problem is and are not interested in any kind of solution, merely to place and shift blame on those dastardly Democrats.
Have it your way. The fact remains the Republicans have been running the country for 6 years and have controlled Congress for 12 and the country is a mess. Fact. I don't care who is to blame, I just want a solution, but as long as there are people like you around there will be no solution because you don't have the integrity to compromise. Your too wedded to your ideology to see reality.
Why are the Democrats so adamant about denying the public the same market driven pension system that their public employee constituency enjoys?
With a question of my own:
Republicans have had control of Congress for 12 years and have very generous pension plans for members of Congress and employees of Congress. Why are they so adamant about denying the public the same pension system that they enjoy?
Talk about hypocrisy.
You were acting in an extremely partisan manner and avoiding a direct question that I had asked multiple time.
Take a hard look at the New Jersey Pension Retirement formula. here
Let's look at a worker making $50K who retires at age 57 after 35 years of work. They would enjoy a $31K income.
Now imagine if they work to 67 like all Social Security recipients are forced to do. They would receive a $40K payout.
Sure beats Social Security, eh?
That is rather simple to answer: The Democrats and RINO's blocked them.
No problem, I hope you join the rest of us who are lobbying Gather.com to donate our payout to charity.
Charity, why that is a great idea. How about a Palestinian aid organization? Sounds like a great idea. I'll double what you donate.
The records is pretty clear regarding initiatives in Congress, the Senate and the Administration.
The people who blocked the effort should be faulted, not those who tried and failed.
Yeah, it would nice to know that your Gather.Com points blew up a school bus of kids.
"Let's look at a worker making $50K who retires at age 57 after 35 years of work. They would enjoy a $31K income."
After contributing how much (with intrest) of their money to said plan?
The people who blocked the effort should be faulted, not those who tried and failed.
Since when did America take up the mantle of rewarding failure?