TPMDC
Pawlenty: Give Younger Workers 'Notice' And 'Fairly Change Expectations' On Entitlements
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
Share
Send to a friend!
What exactly does Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), a potential presidential candidate, want to do with the country's two big entitlement programs?
Appearing on Meet The Press this past weekend, Pawlenty spoke in favor of radical changes to Social Security for younger workers:
So the truth of the matter is, is we are going to have to reform entitlement programs. I've done this in Minnesota, for example, with our bus drivers in the Twin Cities. They had post-retiree health insurance benefits, and the premise was this, if we made a promise to you, we'll keep it. We're not going to cut people off in terms of their pensions if we've made a promise to you. But for people who are new to the system, who are coming on, where we can fairly give them notice and fairly change expectations, the system's going to change. And we did it.
We asked Alex Conant, spokesman for Pawlenty's Freedom First PAC, whether Pawlenty would favor the budget roadmap outlined by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which would privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with a voucher system for private health insurance. "I haven't looked at that," Conant said.
In addition, Pawlenty's comment sounded somewhat similar to comments early this month from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). "So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don't have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off," said Bachmann. "And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can't do it. So we just have to be straight with people. So basically, whoever our nominee is, is going to have to have a Glenn Beck chalkboard and explain to everybody this is the way it is."
Does Pawlenty agree, we asked, with Bachmann's call for weaning America off of Social Security and Medicare?
"I'll let the governor's comments speak for themselves. I think the governor's comments were very clear," said Conant, who said this wasn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with particular individuals' proposals that are out there.
Pawlenty's appearance on Meet The Press was part of a media tour coinciding with his appearance last week at CPAC. He has been pitching himself as a conservative leader who has been able to win in the liberal state of Minnesota. It could be that Pawlenty's position on Social Security and Medicare, pointing towards spending cuts instead of tax increases, would be more likely to appeal to the party's conservative base.
Comments (76) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 23, 2010 10:47 AM
We shouldn't dismiss this lightly. They're playing directly to the rampant cynicism of the younger generation about the future of Social Security in particular. Most of them don't get, or simply can't believe that the absolute worst case scenario is that they'll only get 75% of promised benefits. Growing up under Bush II, they've learned to expect the worst and believe nothing the government tells them and an alarming number of them believe (encouraged by Republican lies) that when the trust fund is exhausted, that's it. There'll be no money in the piggy bank to pay them anything, anyway.
And besides, we'll probably be extinct by the time they get old, anyway.
What Pawlenty and Bachmann are saying could end up sounding like "straight talk" to them rather than what it is--a naked attempt to turn Social Security taxes and the trust fund over to the Banksters so they can build themselves another bubble with it.
If would help if Democrats could engage in actual truthful straight talk without people like Krugman and Digby losing their shit about "adopting Republican frames" and insisting that everything is fine, absolutely fine, no need to do anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Right, why should Krugmnan and Digby tell the truth about Social Security? We just can't have an epidemic of truth-telling going on, now can we.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 23, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The truth is that we won't be able to pay 100% of promised benefits after the trust fund is exhausted unless we raise taxes and/or raise the retirement age. Raise taxes, Raise retirement age. Cut benefits. At least one of those things has to happen.
It needs to be fixed. Frankly admitting that there is, in fact, a a problem and saying it needs fixing does not open the door to handing the whole thing over to Goldman Sachs unless we let it. That's all I'm saying. And saying it is evidently some kind of heresy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gg
February 23, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
This is one of the biggest lies here (from NCSteve, who I hope
does not have Kay Hagan's ear on this):
"The truth is that we won't be able to pay 100% of promised benefits after the trust fund is exhausted unless we raise taxes and/or raise the retirement age. Raise taxes, Raise retirement age. Cut benefits. At least one of those things has to happen."
No, it doesn't.
The deficit is already over a TRILLION dollars annually.
We can't pay FOR MOST shit as it stands! Social Security
IS NOT SPECIAL in this regard! We don't have to raise taxes,raise the retirement age, OR cut benefits: we could
1) just let the deficit grow to TWO trillion dollars annually.
2) CUT DEFENSE SPENDING, DUMBASS.
3) Recognize that "raising taxes and cutting benefits" ARE NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL kinds of things!! IT MATTERS A GREAT DEAL
*WHOSE* taxes you are raising and WHOSE benefits you are cutting! If you are ONLY raising taxes on A FEW rich people and ONLY cutting benefits for A FEW rich people, then, for THE VAST MAJORITY OF VOTERS, YOU *ARE NOT* raising *THEIR* taxes or cutting *THEIR* benefits!!!!!!!!!
In the case of Social Security specifically, the magic number is
$106,800/yr.
That is the income above which you PAY NO Social Security tax.
That is an automatic built-in regressive 15.3% DECREASE in your marginal tax rate above that income!!!!!!
Perhaps more to the point, if your annual income is $106,800/yr, then no matter how much you may have paid into Social Security, you DON'T actually NEED any (though cost-of-
living in parts of NY or Mass. is so much higher than in Miss.
or W.Va. that you may THINK you do -- what you ACTUALLY need to do IS MOVE).
So, yes, eliminating the cap would be "a tax increase", BUT ONLY ON THE TOP DECILE of families!!!! On everybody else it would just have NO effect AT ALL!
As a party we simply do not need ANY votes whatSOEVER from THAT
demographic -- and we will still get some anyway -- a lot of people in that demographic DO understand the concept of fairness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 23, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to gg
Thank you for your calm, well-reasoned response to my request that we be allowed to engage in calm, reasoned discussion about this topic.
I especially loved the part where you say we could just let the deficit double and then called me a dumbass. Because, hey, it's not like we have to pay interest on that debt every year or ever pay the principle back or anything.
One percent of a trillion is thirty billion. We're currently borrowing at about four and a half percent. Every trillion we add to the national debt adds forty to forty five billion in interst payments to next year's budget. The current public national debt is 11.4 trillion. This year, we paid 164 billion in interest on it. Pile on another twenty trillion over ten years, like we're proposing and we close in on half a trillion a year that goes just for interest. Except it won't be just half a trillion, because the more we borrow, the higher the interest rate we'll have to offer as lenders become more and more concerned about whether we'll pay it back.
And here's the sad part: we agree on the solution to Social Security. It's just that you somehow think we'll be able to get that solution through Congress against the vociferous and well-funded opposition of the rich people without ever once admitting that there's a problem in need of fixing or trying to generate any sense of urgency about the need to fix it.
Which we can't do if people like you keep throwing screaming tantrums every time the topic is broached.
Merely noting that one of three things has to happen doesn't mean I don't have a preference or that I advocate all three. It means people need to know that the other two mathematically possible solutions are less palatable than the tax increase on the well-off, which they clearly are for everyone except for the well0off people we both want to tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 23, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Um, one percent of a trillion is ten billion. Double dumbass on me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
February 23, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Exactly - I mean, where does it end?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
February 23, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
required viewing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI&feature=player_embedded
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gg
February 23, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
We are not "losing our shit".
Not unless we go along with this bullshit.
We are calling it "adopting Republican frames"
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT *IS*.
Democrats should have nothing whatosever to do with
this except to dismiss it as lies.
We should be telling young people that they are
guaranteed to get the SAME deal, if not a BETTER one,
than the boomers got on Social Security.
If they refuse to believe this because they think it's
fiscally impossible, well, then, the rest of you will
just have to emulate me in training to be high school math teachers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 23, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to gg
We cannot pay 100% of benefits after the trust fund is exhausted unless we raise the payroll tax. That little report you get from Social Security Administration every year says as much in as many words every year.
It is not demographically possible. Once the boomers age out of the work force, we'll have too few working age people paying benefits to too many old people living longer than they used to thanks to medicare, medical science and the death of the tobacco industry to pay full benefits unless something changes.
The alternatives to raising the payroll tax are to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I prefer the tax increase. I suspect the rest of us do to. It will never happen if we're not allowed to admit there's a problem for fear the zampolits will have us sent to the Gulag if we say it.
We really can't afford having two parties in this country who think they can just wish desired facts into being by sheer force of will. We have one already and it's one too many.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
February 23, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Bachmann suggesting using the rodeo clown's chalkboard, uhhhm. Isn't the redeo clown ALWAYS wrong when he writes on that chalkboard, which reflects his level of education?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
February 23, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
required viewing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI&feature=player_embedded
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Terri
February 23, 2010 11:08 AM
On the big picture, this is exactly correct. Entitlements need to be reformed; expections need to be changed. It is mathmatically impossible to have all the same benefits for all the people who qualify under the current rules with the amount of money currntly being collected through payroll taxes. Dems automatically rejecting this out of hand will drive people to the other extreme. We need to engage in an honest discussion with everything on the table. We (and repubs) need to stop scaring people and be realistic. I usually discount "the American people" argument realizing that most people are woefully uninformed, but on this one issue, I believe there is at least a basic understanding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to Terri
People who conflate the VERY different situations of SS and Medicare under the rubric of "entitlements" are themselves woefully uninformed, unless they're just being disingenuous.
Also, I'll start paying attention to deficit hawks of all stripes on the day when they admit that that major cuts to the obscenely bloated military budget are going to be needed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
February 23, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
there is no question you are correct and the thing to watch is how the democrats react to this.
i say it is no coincidense that we see republicans arguing this at the same time obama creates a commission to "look into" so called entitlements.
this is all meaningless stuff because it can easily be fixed.
the real issue is how to keep the war machine going and the SS money is wanted for that and thats why both parties are after it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 23, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Totally agree with that. Fixing Social Security is relatively easy. Tack on a second tax bracket that kicks in on income over 200K or so, and presto, problem solved.
Medicare? Damifino what to do about that.
Conflating the two problems is adopting Republican framing. No argument there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
So then, why do you indulge in hippie-bashing against people who are simply pointing out the truth of what you just agreed with yourself? You really need to rethink your rhetoric on this, it's pretty incoherent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
February 23, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to Terri
Terri the initial cost of fixing Social Security is $1.50/week for the median income household or 0.15% of payroll for each of employer and employee. For a minimum wage worker that reduces to about 50 cents a week. Under current projections this would fix Social Security until 2026 when another series of increases would be needed, in each case a small fraction of projected Real Wage increases over that period.
Why in the course of "an honest discussion with everything on the table" has an payroll tax solution never actually made it to that table? Changes in retirement age, cap increases, changing from wage indexing to price indexing. Yep all those make it to the table but a simple tax increase never.
The proximate reason is clear, Bush in setting up his Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS) in 2001 ruled payroll taxes out of order. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/csss/index.htm
This wasn't out of some deep concern for worker welfare, he was perfectly willing to screw over those workers by keeping them hitched to the plow for two or three more years, his people just knew if workers were offered the tradeoff of three more years in retirement for an initial cost of $1.50 a week and a cost once entirely phased in by 2050 of an inflation adjusted $15/week of take home out of a much larger real wage they might grab the deal and run.
The numbers are right here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r49_nOHQG4QdHuwcbMGmP0Q
They work, they have been run by people like Dean Baker and informally by staff of the Social Security Office of the Chief Actuary, it is just that no one wants to acknowledge them.
Under SSA numbers the 75 year payroll gap is 2.01% of payroll. But the 25 year gap is only 0.19% of payroll and there is no reason to take all the pain in one gulp. A 0.30% immediate increase in FICA directed at the DI (Disability Insurance) component of Social Security puts that program in near balance for the 75 year actuarial period. A series of increases of 0.20% of payroll directed at the OAS (Old Age/Survivors) component starting in 2026 does the same for it. Starting cost in takehome? $1.50/week for a household earning $50,000.
These are SSA numbers. Under CBO numbers the cost of a payroll only fix are 33% less of a total 75 year gap of 1.3% of payroll.
This is why the only numbers you ever see in Social Security 'crisis' reporting are aggregated over the Infinite Future Horizon and expressed as "Unfunded Liability" in trillions of dollars. Because they know that once those numbers are broken down to dollars per household per week people will just laugh in their faces. Do the math on your own paycheck and ask if you wouldn't pay that amount per week to secure 100% of the current scheduled benefit with no changes in retirement age. And remember that SSA 2.01% and CBO 1.3% are employer and employee combined, the hit to actual take home being half of that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Terri
February 23, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
Bruce,
I don't disagree with you. The small increase on Social Security tax is an easy fix and should be done. But that doesn't address Medicare and Medicaid.
I don't need to "do the math on my own paycheck". I do the payroll for all my empolyees and pay the employer portion. I also buy the health insurance for my employees - which had a premium rate increase of 27% this past year. When I say everything, that is what I mean, tax increases and spending reductions or relocations. I also seperate the short term and long term, knowing we need deficit spending now in the short term.
The reason an "everything on the table" discussion' doesn't happen is Dems don't want to address spending and Repubs don't want to address reveunes. Unless both sides of the equation are addressed honestly, it's business as usual.
Those tax increase on "cadillac plans" need to be on the table as well. Everyone needs to have skin in the game. I want my employees to have health coverage they can afford. I want to not have to lay off people because our rates increase 25% or more year after year. I want to know that our elected officials can intelligently address a problem and come up with a solution that works for most people.
I know...I live in a dream world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
February 23, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to Terri
'Entitlements' is a term to be avoided. It is mostly used as an excuse to lump in Social Security with Medicare so an to enable some sort of 'global' solution. Medicare does not present a problem in itself, medical inflation presents a problem to Medicare. Friends of Social Insurance programs need to be self-aware of the dangers of adopting the 'entitlements' framing. The goal from the beginning has been to sell a message of "we can't afford to wait", "sooner is better than later" and in regards to Social Security "lets fix the small problem first".
If you define the problem as one of 'entitlements' being too big a percentage of spending and GDP then the natural solution is to cut down the rate of spending. Which is why only benefit cuts ever make it to the table. If instead you redefine the problem as one of future benefit cuts then you can address the full range of options to either find ways of meeting the schedule or of minimizing the discontinuity at Trust Fund Depletion. But that first requires addressing Social Security in isolation and not letting it get swept willy nilly into the policy mix.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to Terri
Everybody including the Defense Department needs to have skin in the game. And they get to go first. Not to mention, what I said above about dishonestly conflating the situations of SS and Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Terri
February 23, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
And there in lies the problem..."they need to go first". Both sides need to be willing to hold hands and go at the same time. But yes, the defense budget needs to be included in the discussion. Plenty of savings/reductions to be had there.
Again, nothing can be excluded at the beginning of a discussion if you want to have the best possible outcome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to Terri
Right, the Pentagon and middle and working class retirees are equally overstuffed with cash so they need to sacrifice equally.
Idiot. The wingnuts are what they are, but it's "reasonable" people like YOU who are the real reason this country is so fucked up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dollared
February 23, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to Terri
I will not call Terri an idiot - s/he clearly is not. But Steve is absolutely right, and Terri is wrong, and speaking Republicanese. The problems and the fixes must be segregated very carefully. The budget and Social Security are very, very simple fixes: 1) restore Clinton income tax rates, with a new marginal rate of 40% above $1M top and 25% capital gains rate; 2) New Social Security rate of 2% above $250k in income; 3) Cut defense spending and farm subsidies in half; 4) cap and trade with some income to the government.
Medicare is a hard problem. The messaging has to be super-simple and repeated every day, five times a day: Social security is not a problem. Medicare is. Social Security is not a problem. Medicare is. Medicare is. etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gg
February 23, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to Terri
Entitlements do NOT need to be reformed.
Expectations do NOT need to be changed.
Rich people's taxes DO need to be raised.
There is simply no moral justification for
taxing 18% of everybody's income BELOW $100K/yr
and none of it above. The CORRECT thing (morally)
would be THE EXACT OPPOSITE of this!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
February 23, 2010 11:10 AM
75% of 160% = 120%
I call it Rosser's Equation after Prof. Barkley Rosser of JMU who pointed it out. Initial benefits under Social Security increase in proportion to Real Wage, meaning that each generation of retirees has been able to buy a bigger basket of goods with their retirement check. This doesn't mean a higher replacement rate, just the same replacement rate from a higher average baseline.
If we do nothing to Social Security under the relatively (still) pessimistic assumptions of Intermediate Cost the retiree of 2038 will only have 20% more purchasing power than a similarly situated retiree gets today.
That is the dirty little secret of 'crisis' that opponents of SS don't want to acknowledge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
February 23, 2010 11:10 AM
They myth of Democratic Minnesota should be laid to rest. Just read the comment section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune to see what "Minnesota nice" looks like. We should call it Igotmineistan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eric the red
February 23, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to blkblt
Well, all the haters and morons comment on the Strib comments, it certainly isn't representative. It is like all the commentators on any newspaper site. Atrios likes to link to the ones in Philly.
With regard to the "myth" of a Democratic Minnesota, I would like to point out that the State Senate has 46 DFL members and 21 Republicans. The House is 87 to 47. Pawlenty squeaks by in three way elections, but this is a DFL state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
February 23, 2010 11:56 AM
If one of these clowns actually gets elected and actually manages to dismantle SS, I want my money back. Over the years, my employer(s) and I put something like $106,000 into the SS trust fund. That's mine, and if SS is going away, I want it back. I'm sure lots of people at the midpoint of their working lives (or a little bit past that) feel the same way.
People ought to be asking Pawlenty and the rest of the nutjobs about this. Bring your annual statements with you. Wave them around as you ask. Don't let the bastards wiggle of the hook. Make them own this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 23, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
that's a really good point. I've been paying into the system for decades and this dickhead would say I don't deserve shit or I have to sent it to Wall Street. fuck him and the horse he rode in on
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
February 23, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
Absolutely. These guys like Pawlenty are just trying to get Republican paws on our money, so they can distribute it to their friends and backers.
No thanks!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
February 23, 2010 12:35 PM
fairly change expectations
Like someone openly palms a coin?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
February 23, 2010 12:39 PM
As The Decider once said: "Bring it on!" The more Rethugs speak out like this, the closer that Permanent Democratic Majority is to realization.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
February 23, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to CityGuy
Don't discount the power of the "Social Security just won't be there for me" argument.
The current campaign against Social Security was laid out in detail in a Fall 1983 paper by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis entitled: "Social Security Reform: Achieving a "Leninist" Strategy". It had, and as can be seen with Pawlenty, still has three main elements:
One reassure those in or approaching retirement that their own benefits are secure.
Two convince the young that they are screwed no matter what happens.
Three get the young to blame the Boomers and so join in the effort to screw the Boomers on the 'misery loves company' principle.
It worked, half of the discussions of Social Security are shot through with Gen-X resentment of Boomers on just about everything. A look at the calenders shows that the premise is faulty, Boomers were just not in control of really anything at the key points in time, we didn't elect Reagan, and we didn't control Congress under Bush, or really even now. But the Leninist Strategy keeps rolling along.
So when the Republicans decide to "Bring it on!" and Progressives meet them head on at the barricades, make sure the younger workers aren't hanging back muttering "Screw 'em, Boomers broke it, let THEM fix it".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 23, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
re: Boomers were just not in control of really anything at the key points in time
you really believe that? boomers are probably about the most over-privileged generation ever, certainly more so than the generation before them or after. what generation were the last two 2-term presidents from? what generation are most congress people from? who runs most of the companies in this country?
get real
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
February 23, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
We were sold the 401K crap. How is that working out for ya? We use to work under a pension system. What a bunch of fools we are to fall for the Repubs' lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 23, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Excellent point. My parents had a pension, employer-paid health insurance, Medicare, and Social Security when they retired.
I'll have a 401K that was ravaged by lack of regulation, Medicare, and Social Security.
So in the Republican campaign to bring back old-age poverty, they have already defeated my future on two fronts and crippled my future on a third. Privatizing Social Security and replacing Medicare with "vouchers" will finish the job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 23, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Can't wait until you're in your 50's and the next generation can savage YOU.
What, you didn't get that BMX bike you wanted for Christmas?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WestRox
February 23, 2010 12:47 PM
With so many baby boomers aging in to the system and many having lost a lot of money in the market, would they actually vote for anyone actively campaigning to dismantle both?
As for younger voters jaded by the Bush years, they don't generally vote anyway. I'm 42, have been paying into both for 22 years now, and doubt that my cohorts, as we get older, would accept some BS plan. The age limit may go up, I expect to be workin into my 70's (kenahora we're here that long), but with polls showing a desire for a public option, who would vote for someone like Pawlenty?
I'm no expert, and like most, just watch the news, read here, I do volunteer for campaigns and vote for Dems. I do because they usually don't hate the poor, the elderly, GLBT folks, immigrants and so on. The (we)Dems aren't perfect, but we're not motivated by hate. Our pols can whore with the best of 'em, but we tend to do it in a way less hateful. Call it, a kinder, gentler whoring.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 23, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to WestRox
I am going to start collecting my first check for full benefits the third week in March. I have worked 49 years and while I am still unable to fully retire, I am looking forward to collecting my social security and no one better even think about taking it away.
My sister and brother are right wingers and they love their social security and medicare benefits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
February 23, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Your brother and sister are crazy. Ask them if they would vote to take away their social security?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Waltz
February 23, 2010 1:11 PM
NO! NO! NO! Why do conservatives hate retirees?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
February 23, 2010 1:15 PM
Then we must tell the young that they will have to take care of their grandparents and parents. Before Social Security folks went to the poor house.
As a Baby Boomer, I am so sick of being jerked around on this issue.
We are 80 million strong. Sure some of us are rich (not me), but most of us will need Social Security to survive.
They are counting on the greed of individuals to get them votes. How sick!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gg
February 23, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Bear115 is just ignorant to the point of stupidity.
We paid in MORE than was needed -- that's what CREATED the surplus
in the Social Security trust fund. It was SUPPOSED to be there
so that WE COULD draw it down -- it's OUR MONEY!!
I guess flaunting your ignorance is the best way to get it cured,
but Stupid People Shouldn't Vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bear 115
February 23, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to gg
Um, I know SS is taking out of paychecks and I know about the "reform" that occurred under Reagan. And then later it was used for to justify tax cuts and discretionary spending and diverted from the trust fund. Exactly my point. And that was done by governments that previous generations voted for (maybe not you or many people at TPM), but certainly not mine. Great, you paid it in...but it was taken out. So either way it's now there now.
Further, I was mainly referring to Medicare in terms of my generation's obligations for older generations. I know SS is not a huge lift to fix. But the Ryan plan to fix Medicare basically exempts everyone over 55 but then changes the program to a voucher for the private market tied to inflation (not medical inflation) for everyone else. That means I will pay the same tax rate as my parents but every year my expected benefits will decrease relative to inflation. So even though this has been a looming problem our country has known for what, 30 years, those who did nothing to fix it keep full benefits while my generation gets hit with the tab. Sorry, but I think only the ignorantly stupid people of my age would see that as a fair deal.
Finally, thanks for the civil responses. Keep it classy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
February 23, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to Bear 115
Guess who ran the country for 28 or the last 30 years???
The Repubs!
We can not go to a voucher system regarding medicare. Fix health care insurance mess and then we can do the right thing for our citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 23, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Somehow federal policy always screws the savers. I hoped to retire with half my income from Social Security and half from my own savings. From 62 to 65, Social Security won't even cover my health insurance. Then Democrats come along and want to "means test" Social Security. Well, it is already means-tested on the tax side. A person averaging $100K will pay 5 times the tax paid someone making $230K, but will only get twice the benefit. Then we "means-test" them out of that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 23, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to condew
5 times the tax paid by someone making $20K.
I swear there is something about text boxes that creates typos that make no sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 23, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to condew
I don't think it's the DEMS that want to means test Social Security.
And just to throw a little fact into the discussion, every population cohort following the Boomers has just as many people in it. There is NO pig in the python. Fake statistic that make the Boomer "generation" 18 years long and subsequent "generations" 9 to 11 years long create that hoary lie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 23, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Oh they havn't been saying it yet, this time around, but they will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 23, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Cal Gal
The estimates in the difference in benefits and taxes are facts, derived from the Social Security form used to compute benefits. I forget the exact thresholds, but after computing your average income, adjusted for wage increases, over your best 30 years, you get roughly 90% of the first 20K, 35% of the next 20K, and 15% of the rest. Income above the anual maximum is not considered. So the 20K average gets you an 18K pension, and a 100K average gets you a 34K pension. So 5 times the income = 5 times the taxes = 2 times the benefit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bear 115
February 23, 2010 1:15 PM
I'm in my late-twenties and this proposal to "phase out" benefit levels for Social Security and Medicare sounds like a way to stick it to my generation in order to not piss off the 50 and over set - for obvious political reasons. But why should older Americans be immune from any cost-saving changes? Why guarantee benefits to people who were unwilling to pay enough in so that the programs were financially secure, and in many cases who are now unwilling (in the case of health care) to support needed changes that would make the system more efficient.
If Pawlenty and Republicans want to give "fair warning" then fine - let's have these proposals apply to those under 18 at the time the law is enacted. At least they will know from the beginning what they will get upon retirement. By the time these changes would likely go into effect, I will have already been paying taxes into the programs for 15+ years. Is that fair warning?
I understand the budget outlook of the country and I'm willing to live with benefit reductions or tax increases. But I do not think it is at all fair to continue to give the same level of benefits to my parents and grandparents (as much as I love them) that they mismanaged for the past 25 years while giving themselves tax cuts and treating the nation like a credit card. Every American should have some skin in the game on this one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
February 23, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to Bear 115
Social Security is taken out of your check. Are you really that out of touch with reality?
We use to work under a pension system, but were sold a bill of goods by the Repubs that 401Ks were the way to go. Now we are just plain screwed.
Baby Boomers are 80 million strong, but young folks better wake up or they will be taking care of us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Willow
February 23, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to DownriverDem
Young folks are already taking care of you.
There isn't hostility towards the government from the younger generation (25 and under). The hostility is toward the boomers and our parents and grandparents who got us into this mess.
Is that misguided? I honestly don't know. But the resentment is there. The mantra is, "I can't wait until that generation is dead and gone."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to Willow
If you "honestly don't know" then you should go and inform yourself. It's straight-up lying propaganda from
the Pete Peterson crowd, which too many people, perhaps including you, have swallowed uncritically. And which Democrats, with their usual ineptitude at messaging, have failed dismally to counter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 23, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Willow
From the Social Security website, the average Social Security benefit is $1038 per month (12,452/year). In my area that would not even pay the rent on a one-room apartment. I'd hardly call that generous.
The benefit for the younger generation is that as long as the benefit is adequate, mom & dad don't move in with you, and if still there but inadequate they still have some money to contribute to the household budget when they do move in with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Bear 115
Lie. Reagan's payroll tax increase forced us to pay quite a bit MORE than that, with the empty promise that the excess would be saved for future benefits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gg
February 23, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to Bear 115
Well, I'm sorry, you're just full of it.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with avoiding
pissing off the 50 year old set. We are much more pissed off
AT YOU for DARING to suggest that we "mismanaged our benefits for
the past 25 years". And good grief: WE didn't give anybody tax cuts!
It was REPUBLICANS empowered by a YOUNGER generation that grew up
UNDER REAGAN who did that! Boomers vote more Democratic!
There are a lot of easy obvious reforms for Social Security and
it is not any sort of fiscal danger to the nation.
But if you keep falling for this right-wing spin, then YOU sure are a danger to the nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
February 23, 2010 1:30 PM
Why does Tim Pawlenty want to pull the plug on Granny's SS check?
DEATH BY SPREADSHEET! DEATH BY SPREADSHEET!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
February 23, 2010 1:31 PM
How great would it be to have a sane opposition party? Alas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
February 23, 2010 1:33 PM
I thought the reference to bus drivers was interesting in that he apparently wants to throw everyone either off or under the bus. Social Security has been much safer than both traditional pensions when a company goes belly up or 401Ks or for that matter real estate in a large part of the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 23, 2010 1:36 PM
As a practical matter, phasing in and fair notice are how any reform would happen, no matter what it was. For example, the last time the eligibility age was raised something like a 10 year window was built in (and the GOP will always kick a tax hike/benefit expiration down the road in an election year, so it really can take much longer).
Typical Pawlenty, though - he's using unobjectionable process language without ever admitting that the end result of the process he wants to engage in is mush more radical than he will admit openly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 23, 2010 1:46 PM
Phasing out SS is a third rail. I encourage Gov. Pawlenty to grasp it tightly, and snuggle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to agio
I wish I felt so confident. As demonstrated in some of the comments above, the constant stream of mendacious anti-SS propaganda, poorly if at all countered by Democrats, has taken a real toll on support for the system even among people who ought to know better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 23, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Actually, that's exactly my point.
But one of the reasons the Democrats' messaging is such mess is that it's impossible to craft a coherent, comprehensible message, because either the party's left will spew vitriol on it (no matter how far left it is) or the party's right will wet itself and run away from it just as fast as it can (no matter how far right it is), or both. The result is mealy-mouthed incomprehensible gobbledegook that they hope neither side will be able to understand well enough to attack.
Republican messaging is easier. Throw together some simplistic tripe based on made up facts, blow a note on the racial dogwhistle and the whole party will stand up and salute in ecstacy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gg
February 23, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to agio
Amen. I, too, encourage all Republicans to keep doing this.
But this must be accompanied by equally loud whines at Democrats
to condemn it, to heighten the contradictions, to maximize the
polarization, to demonize the Republicans FOR doing it, to
make it abundantly clear to all that OUR position is THE EXACT
OPPOSITE of this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
February 23, 2010 1:50 PM
"Young folks are already care of you" Utter BS.
People in their sixties paid into the SS system for forty years, with benefits going to workers of the generation before. Now young people don't want to pay into SS.
Fine, here is my proposal: instead of paying into SS, young people should be forced to pay for the work houses and debtors prisons that will be necessary to house those who are too selfish to support a public retirement system.
I continue to pay into SS and am damn proud of it. The alternative would be to see more homeless old people, and to have to compete with older people for jobs. I am for raising the cap on payments into SS AND lowering, not raising, the age a person can retire. The idea that so many Americans think it is a good idea to raise the age of retirement amazes me. Next they'll complain about all the old people running companies because they won't retire.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
February 23, 2010 2:07 PM
remember the people who wont be buying this scam are the seniors and they vote!
this young crowd might be against SS (though i have never seen proof ot it) but dont expect them to vote.
what makes this very dangerous indeed is the fact that obama feels the same way.
and there is NO question something will change to the benefits of SS because the government will not return the trillions it has stolen from the trust fund.
this is a very telling argument and people should wonder why it is all coming front and center now.
and watch to see if the democrats use this issue to define the parties.
i say they will not because my bet is there are to few democrats left who care enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 23, 2010 2:20 PM
I continue to fear that in Obama's endless quest to be "bipartisan" (i.e. suck up to Republicans), he would sign a bill that phases out Social Security much as Clinton gutted welfare.
Anything done to Social Security benefits should happen over 50 to 75 years; that is, over an entire working lifetime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 23, 2010 2:26 PM
How to save Social Security?
No cap on pay subject to tax.
Tax compensatory capital gains as well as wages. (I'm lookin' at YOU hedge fund managers.)
Lock box.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dollared
February 23, 2010 2:44 PM
The problems and the fixes must be segregated very carefully. The budget and Social Security are very, very simple fixes: 1) restore Clinton income tax rates, with a new marginal rate of 40% above $1M top and 25% capital gains rate; 2) New Social Security rate of 2% above $250k in income; 3) Cut defense spending and farm subsidies in half; 4) cap and trade with some income to the government.
Medicare is a hard problem. The messaging has to be super-simple and repeated every day, five times a day: Social security is not a problem. Medicare is. Social Security is not a problem. Medicare is. Medicare is. etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Northern Ned
February 23, 2010 2:49 PM
Pawlenty won in MN because there was a 3rd party candidate each time he ran. He recieved roughly 42% and 43% of the vote in each election. So much for his "A Repub that can win in a Blue State" line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepeoplechoose
February 23, 2010 3:24 PM
The question to ask is who'll end up with all the money they cut? You know damn well this is a scam to make the rich richer and the middle class just flat disappear. This is the same thing that has been going on for four decades. The crooks are coming out of the closet for sure. Who would have ever thought congress would turn thievery into a respectable and applauded profession. Minnesota voters are suckers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
February 23, 2010 3:35 PM
Utter and complete horseshit. You've seen plenty of examples of the "left wing"'s "vitriol" right here, and it merely amounts to 1) telling the truth about the real financial situation of SS, which is far from dire, and 2) resisting the dishonest conflation of SS and Medicare. Would it really be so hard for mainstream Dems to fight the Peterson brigade by saying these simple things at every opportunity?
YOU, my friend, are part of the problem on this one. Own that and mend your ways, or at least stop crapping on people who are trying to get these simple, easily understandable points across through the fog of right-wing lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MassDem
February 23, 2010 4:26 PM
Keep the gubmint's hands off my gubmint healthcare program.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
February 23, 2010 9:10 PM
Bring back the 90% tax rate on the wealthy. And the other tax levels in between.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?