Since it seems clear we will be deciding whether we want to preserve the Social Security Act by our choice of leaders in the next few elections, I thought it not unreasonable to reprint this piece from last year about why people in the 1930s thought the measure was imperative.
Thank you, Heather, for this beautiful piece on Frances Perkins and the history of Social Security. I do agree that any political party that tries to destroy Social Security by calling it an "entitlement" will bring the wrath of the majority of the citizens down upon them. When like myself one has paid into Social Security for decades, many years at the maximum, I consider the check I get every month now in my seventies as a return on my investment. It is like having insurance for retirement. This doesn't just affect the older citizens, the younger generations will have to take care of their parents. It is a message that the Democrats and Independents should shout to the rooftop of the Capitol Dome. We, the People, all of us this time!
Thank you Cathy, the issue of "many years paying the maxium" annual limit for paying SSA taxes is a huge one. I believe the annual income limit in 2022 is around $147,000. The taxable income limit has increased every year at a steep incline since the 1980's. Now that corporations pay a minimum tax of 15% perhaps we can fund Frances Perkins' vision more fairly. Regular, direct monthly, electronic deposits into a bank account provides some debt collection protection.
I certainly wouldn't have minded paying through the entire year rather than have the Social Security payroll deduction end in June or July. The other part of the equation is the amount you get back monthly is also based partly on how much you put in. Seems like there would be a fair way to keep Social Security solvent.
Absolutely! I have always thought the income cap was a bit illogical since those who can least afford the deduction from their paychecks pay for their Social Security tax with every pay period, while those for whom the deduction in their wages is unnoticeable finish their contributions quickly in that year and don’t get taxed again until the next January. I believe this is very regressive and onerous for the very individuals who need the help from that safety net the most.
Definitely a regressive tax. The percentage of SSA taxes paid by high income earners is capped whereas low to middle earners pay incressing dollars out-of-pocket EACH year. Thank you Betsy.
Yes, and during the years my payments stopped early, I always thought it made no sense. Removing the cap on SSA income would help the system and harm no one.
There have been many excellent proposals how to amend this problem--all rejected by one party, of course. The easiest way to have kept the SS Fund stable was to have indexed the annual income cap to the federal COLA when they indexed the benefits to them.
I would ask: why is there an income cap at all? Why are we protecting the high incomes of the affluent when so many are in such need? Removing the cap will not change the lifestyles of those top earners. But it certainly would make a difference in the solvency of the program.
Remove the cap, restore financial health to the system and then give us all a raise. In fact I would think we should tie the increase in benefits not to inflation - but to the average increase in top executive pay (including stock options).
Bill The basic rationale why there is an income cap on the basis for individuals paying into the Social Security I find convoluted. There is a limit on what an individual can receive annually from Social Security. The ‘protect the rich’ purported logic was that since the payout was limited the pay in also should be limited.
Over time the income cap has been raised [on salary—don’t believe that bonuses and ‘carried interest’ are included.] In discussions about how to strengthen the financial resources of Social Security as lessening percentage of workers is paying into retirement payments for burgeoning retirees, I favor a sharp increase in the income cap.
Why are we protecting the incomes of the highest earners? Because of all the messaging over the years about the importance of the job creators and business leaders. The rest of us are moochers. If you chose to make a difference in a way that makes you less money, you keep paying the price. It wasn’t fiscally smart of me to “serve” in the ways that I have and continue to serve. If I hadn’t a support system or occasional medium-sized family money inheritance (made by people who were making far more of a difference in their own power and pocketbooks than I), I could not have done what I do. And I know that what I do has made a difference in many, many lives. We have to shift the conversation. This platform of members is doing just that … seeing how we can shift the conversation. Keep in mind, too, that it’s exceedingly rare for people in their twenties and thirties, no matter how smart, to yet have the wisdom and insights to do that. That’s where we more seasoned folks come in. Retirement can’t and shouldn’t stop us.
Excellent points, Deborah -- protecting so-called job creators? We've yet to feel much trickle down from Reagan economics, have we! And are there enough civic-minded wealthy folks to help the common good with their philanthropy?
And the bootstrap theory is pure theory, imo. In reality, my ancestors, grand parents, parents and I, myself, have all worked continuously and hard and have pretty much just kept our heads above water. What would I do without the SSA, the library, the post office (they are removing the local post office branch soon here in my neighborhood. Why is DeJoy still in office?),
Especially if some of us, like yourself, are in service occupations, we need support to do what we do!! At least buy me some new bootstraps; mine are very worn. And if you'd get me a reliable car, I''ll be happy to continue making visits to our shut-ins, including your elderly relatives, btw.
Additionally nurses and teachers took a beating during Covid. Many retiring due to the challenges in 2022. It’s really hard to want to sacrifice your own life for the arrogant, selfish Trumpsters who don’t care about anyone or anything.
Why indeed? I remember my father explaining the income cap to me. IIRC, he indicated that people earning more than the cap didn't need further protection from poverty. They had their own means to, say, invest in the stock market, or fine art, or real estate, or diamond mines....
There was an underlying idea that one should somehow pay one's own way.
I was too young and inexperienced to understand enough to raise any contrary points with him.
Now, I have to work hard to remember the argument he explained to me.
Yes, of course, Bill. Are you theonly smart, logical person in this country! Why is this not so!! I could never understand the cap except to enhance the already wealthy.
And risk angering potential wealthy donors who are anti-“socialism”? Although, I wouldn’t necessarily call people who make over $147K wealthy in the sense tfg is purported to be. But, oh yeah, if you don’t make your money from actual work you don’t have to pay payroll taxes.
Social Security is taxed when it comes out of a person's paycheck. It was originally not taxed at all when paid. That is how it should be.
When Ronald Reagan cut taxes on the rich, he paid for part of it by starting to tax Social Security payments. There's a complicated formula, so it can be difficult to figure out how much estimated tax to pay. I think Social Security payments should not be taxed at all. But if they are, then yes, put a much higher floor on how much other income a person gets before their Social Security gets taxed.
And change the basis for the tax from Wage/Salary income to Adjusted Gross Income thereby capturing all the dividend and interest income that currently escapes taxation. Minimum income should be no lower than 150% of the poverty threshold.
That's what I've been thinking the entire time. Bump it up to 1,000,000.
The Oregon Public Employees Retirement System has shot itself in the foot by not capping eligible income for calculations. The fellow who coached football at the U of O for quite a while (21 years total working for the university) makes as much income in one month as I make in one year. To put a teacher, fireman, police officer, or public works employee in the same pool at the same rate as someone who makes 10 times their wages as a coach is ridiculous. To be fair, there is also a physician at OHSU (Oregon Health Sciences University) who makes as much/more than the coach does.
$1 million compensation is peanuts in the private equity and venture capital world. Further, most of them are compensated by “dividends”, which have no payroll tax at all - as well as a far lower tax (than income tax).
Yes it is. Peanuts. To them. Just move the comma to the left one notch as a starter. I am NOT a numbers person, so this is the easy math that I can do.
Indeed! And eliminate the WEP!!! I had 25+ years of work before my 16 years as a teacher. Because of that penalty I receive less than half of what I'm entitled to based on my non-teaching earnings (about $500/month). And it's questionable if I would be able to receive spousal benefits.
Early years wage jobs before teaching count & may reach the minimum credits. Double qualifications are not prohibited if you qualify but, paid out per a statutory formula. Community property states have a formula as well to qualify on spouse earnings. Spouse is NOT affected. Ditto ex-spouse. Consult SSA Admin.
This seems like such a simple, obvious solution. I discovered the income cap back in the 90s when I was still working and thought even then that it was unfair. Was also baffled by the number of people in my pay grade and higher who did not realize there was a cap.
Most of us here should be familiar with Thom Hartmann. His daily 3:00 PM show on Sirius Progressive station 127 is always a good fit and supportive of everything HCR writes. His article from Aug 4 is a good overview of the GOP ongoing plan to make the US an authoritarian oligarchy and not surprising, in his opinion and backed-up research, it all begins with Reagan. Have a read:
No, the cap is on the level of income that is taxed. Anything over the $147,000 isn't taxed for Social Security purposes. IRS figures suggest that over 50% of reported income isn't subject to OASDI taxation. The revenue generated by removing the cap and taxing that income would stabilize the Trust Funds at projected outlay levels until the late 2070s.
In my opinion, the cap will simply be raised. It has already been raised faster than inflation, I think, although I haven't run the numbers. If that approach is insufficient, then it is likely the tax rate will be raised, and perhaps a graduated tax rate introduced.
Right now, income above the cap pays zero into social security. On anything below the cap, it’s currently 6.2%. All we need, is to remove the cap so higher earners pay that same rate on all income.
Perkins was a real visionary and as she pointed out in that last paragraph, Social Security was amended and amended and amended. The program started out to provide a minimum level of security for every retiree and came about in an era that prized rugged individualism. It started out, not as a federal retirement program, but to provide for a small part of a retirement; the part that was enough to get by on all other things considered. The right thing to do, possibly the right amount, pretty much what neighbors in her Maine town would give to help out their neighbor. A federal source common, thereby avoiding the the vissitudes of state governments, that would protect widows, retirees, impoverished, disabled Americans.
As a practical visionary she was well aware that the charitable nature of her townspeople did not extend to giving more than a fair share, that the individual must retain their dignity and carry the larger burden along with a federal support. In the beginning, Social Security was not a retirement program, but a support where the individual had responsibility to earn and save enough upon which to retire, including a basic support, a small portion of the costs of retiring.
The cap was put on income in keeping with the times and expectation that the government would not cover everyone's retirement, 100%. The better off among all of us (especially those in employer retirement, land owning, and business owners, those whit investements) should not be expected to carry the fullest burden of the slovenly or the unfortunate. Yes, the fear of socialism and communism played in, especially in the 1930s.
In our lifetimes, we have seen Social Security become the single source for assured retirement income (plus Medicare for health coverage) for millions of low income widows and men (and women) whose life work has not consistently allowed for discretionary income and saving, investments, or home ownership which may have provided the other leg(s) of the support Perkins and FDR had in mind when creating Social Security. Federal policies that favor deregulation and profits for investors over compenation for workers and against organizing of workers increasingly stripped away discretionary income frm the very people who would have to rely on Social Security, if and when they retire, especially as employer-funded retirement benefits become increasingly rare outside government and union-organzed large companies.
There is no question, in my mind, that a cap on earning (not merely wages) be raised and actual cost to guarantee a respectable income for every retiree be pegged to an index (possibly, other than COLA or the CPI) that reflects something above subsistence for low and middle income individuals and families. Yes, I think Perkins envisioned a secure life for our nation's poorest and for those who live beyond an age or health conditions where fulltime employment should be required of them. She was wise enough to start with a federal supports program and let the people (and employers and the better off among us) achieve that end, even if it took 90 (or 100) years.
Three points I forgot. In it's original form, it was to be a guaranteed amount, neither subject to a means test (everyone would be eligible for the amount) nor dependent upon returns on investments or revenue not set aside from the contributions of American workers. This is important as the Fund for Social Security was never to be touched for any other purpose than to support the security of contributing workers and their families (and the share deferred and paid by employers). This Social Insurance (societal commitment) is one of the greatest achievements of a federal government commitment to serve the needs of every working family.
The second point I forgot to remind us of was that when the program was conceived, the earning and contributions came from the wages of a primary breadwinner (usually, male) and the single-family income remained so through much of the early decades wherein both wage earner and spouse were beneficiaries. Other social and labor policies introduced over the years for eligibility entitlement programs (federal aid for housing, welfare, insurance, food stamps, temporary assistance, unemployment insurance) would erode household wage levels and set in place expectations that every adult (the former stay-at-home spouse) should be required to earn wages and contribute to Social Security.
Finally, these related policies and restrictions had their biggest negative effects on low-income, hard to employ, and single households) quality of work (non-benefit jobs) and quality of life. Increasing numbers of them have less and less discretionary income available among the lowest 40 percent of workers who are likely to be living paycheck to paycheck or one disaster (e.g., uninsured health expense, auto repair, layoffs, eviction) away from financial insolvency. Social Security is becoming the expected primary source for retirement and is becoming more and more out of reach of those who simply will not have the second (employer-base pensions) or third leg (personal savings and investments) of retirement envisioned back in the 1930s and 1940s.
But republicans won’t say that they have plans to destroy it, just to “reawaken America” and such blather. They know better than Dems that propaganda works and the “locals” can be hoodooed. I live in the midst of them.
“Reawaken” is dog whistling code to return the nation to where it was pre the Great Depression. A time when SSN, Medicare, and any form of Federally supported safety net was non existent.
The sheer greed and disdain that Republicans and their redneck thugs and minions hold for the idea of ePluribus Unum is of course at the literal heart of the matter
Thank you Cathy and by extension Heather - you have done better than I could to express my my feelings on this subject. I too am in my 70s and my fears for the future of the country mount. And this as I study ancestors ancestors who arrived in the 1600s and their descendants. The US is turning upside down and threats to SS are only one but a critical aspect of the the world today.
My mother-in-law would have been in a world of hurt without Social Security. She would have had to come live with us, as my husband is an only child. I would’ve lost my mind! But I would have done it because I was raised to look after family. It would have been very difficult. We all have family members for whom SS is a lifeline. It is probably a lifeline for most of us.
That rugged individualism is just plain bull$!&t. So is pulling one’s self up by the bootstraps. That’s physically impossible as bootstraps are on the backs of boots. The have-mores always want the have-lesses to pay for everything. The Republicans are the have-more group. In previous decades, they were southern Democrats. The have-more group is powered by greed.The labels are just words. Let’s vote the greedy, bought and paid for have-more politicians out.
Furthermore, if you don't have shoes because of deep poverty- and all it's causes in America- you sure as hell don't have boots and their proverbial straps. The race and classism in all that doesn't need to be pointed out.
Ruth-try doing this: Go to the top of the page-there 's an incomplete circle w/ an arrow @ its end to the left of the search bar box. Click on that circle/arrow to refresh the page. You should be able to click on the heart after that (but may have to repeat the circle click after a bit.
I am sitting in a home right down the road from Frances’ grandmother’s home in Maine. There is construction happening on the site and it will soon be the home of the Perkins Center right here on the Damariscotta River. It is wonderful to see this important American honored.
At least Maine now has ranked choice voting. So perhaps the state won't get "Cutlered" again. BTW wasn't Cutler busted recently? (We lived in Maine for 15 wonderful years).
While the debacle of having LePage elected twice with a minority of the popular vote prompted passage of ranked choice voting, I don't think it applies to the governor's race because it violates Maine's constitution.
What a delight that is- thank you, Celticroot. I am looking forward to being able to visit the Perkins Center. I was an early supporter and was once invited to a garden party on the premises, but was unable to travel at the time. Then there was Covid. But when it becomes possible, I plan to visit and will try to drag my daughter and granddaughter with me (it should be an easy sell- we are of a mind).
Thank goodness for Frances Perkins and her brilliant vision!
“Through her Tammany connections, Perkins met FDR, and when he asked her to be his Secretary of Labor, she told him that she wanted the federal government to provide unemployment insurance, health insurance, and old-age insurance. She later recalled: ‘I remember he looked so startled, and he said, ‘Well, do you think it can be done?’”
What a visionary -- what a woman! It’s an amazing story and well worth remembering her at this anniversary!
I wonder if FDR would have been as legendary if it were not for the women in his life? Frances Perkins, Eleanor Roosevelt, and perhaps his mother as well. Often, he seemed a bit of a playboy with some persuasive ladies who insisted he do the right thing.
FDR had the mind to take the suggestions of these women and other people and make them real. Give credit where credit is due, FDR was a great president for all Americans.
Neither Teddy nor Franklin were without major flaws, but they championed the common weal, not the will of plutocrats. That's a big deal in the history of world leadership.
Please note, I wrote "as legendary if..." I agree the man and the times were outstanding. Nevertheless, he was not particularly inclined to pay attention to striking laborers, Black people, Jews et al. It is striking to me that Frances and Eleanor were the visionaries who had personally witnessed the difficulties of disenfranchised people and prevailed with their compassion. IMO, not as much credit goes to them as it should.
When I recently read a bio of Eleanor, I was struck by her and her vision. I was less impressed by him. Nevertheless he did get some of their and his ideas passed....universal health care was supposed to be part of the package. The AMA hired to political operatives and they were successful in getting that eliminated. They went on to work for Rs.
She was crushed by his unfaithfulness. Some of her proposals, which FDR did not put into legislation quickly, were a concession to her. She asked if he wanted a divorce, but he said it would be politically ruinous, so they stayed married for appearances. "Their pain, our gain."
It would be politically ruinous....well that says it all. And it's sad for her. I knew nothing about her until I watched the series on the WWII stay of the Swedish queen (queen to be?) and decided i needed to know more. I read the most recent bio and frankly, he did not come off that well. Nor did her family in some ways and his mother either. She is now one of my favorite historical people.
They were his eyes, ears and feet. His handicap made getting around difficult. Don’t loose the good for the perfect. Franklin appreciated them. Women in those days were not appreciated ( we are not appreciated now).
I beg to differ hahahaaa...Ms Molly. I teach people to fly planes. I enjoy "appreciating" the effort they put into it. They want to learn. Call me selfish but, the satisfaction I get watching "women" become 'empowered' does it for me and they know I appreciate their importance in this "mans world".
Molly, my computer's ability to register a "Heart" vote isn't working properly, so a comment is in order! Thank you for yours! FDR was his own man! Eleanor was her own very very remarkable self, whom I grew to admire over my lifetime. I remember when we as ignorant children superficially and ignorantly made fun of her because of her looks. As I grew older and learned more about who she was, the shame I felt was palpable. When FDR died, I sobbed as an in-love 10-year-old child, I loved him so much.
While I am grateful for Substack the software seems rough around the edges is several ways. It seems to me that sometimes the ❤️ button responds instantly and sometimes seems inert, but if I click on it, the ❤️ tend to show up sooner or later, with a refresh or something.
I highly recommend the 3 volume biography of Eleanor written by Blanche Weisen Cook. It covers how difficult her childhood was, her multiple friendships over the decades in addition to the problems related to FDR. It also discusses her life after FDR. Did you know she was the Chairperson of the drafting committee of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Got that right Molly. Speaking generally in a community hosted by a remarkable historian, FDR would often give the same executive task to several people & expand authority to those who prrformed well particularly in National Security matters ( eg, Lend Lease ).
My thoughts exactly. Women are often the backbone of these important programs that helped equalize community care and opportunity. Men get the kudos for many things because they had the power all along to implement. Thank goodness there are many women in politics now to help men be reminded of our history, of our people, and what American democracy is supposed to be about: For the Good of ALL The People.
How many voters have any inkling that Social Security is on the line? Not to mention Medicare and Medicaid. Maybe I've missed the GOP articulating a logical rationale for eliminating programs that are not only extremely popular but critical to the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Of course there isn't one.
'New DNC Ads Highlight GOP Putting Seniors’ Medicare and Social Security at Risk'
MAY 12, 2022
'This morning, as new polling shows the GOP plan that could sunset Medicare and Social Security after 5 years is “universally unpopular,” the DNC launched new ads targeting seniors on Facebook to make sure they know that Republicans could put their hard-earned benefits at risk.'
'The ads come as part of a push by the DNC to communicate directly with voters about Republicans’ plan that could raise taxes and sunset Medicare and Social Security. Since NRSC Chair Rick Scott announced the plan in March, the DNC and state Democratic parties have held events blasting the plan in swing states, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia, launched a digital ad buy in key states highlighting how the plan could raise taxes, and bracketed an event where Scott was promoting the plan.'
'Here’s what they’re saying about the new ads:'
'National: Roll Call: New senior-focused ads from Democrats hit Scott’s plans for Medicare, Social Security'
“Democrats are launching an ad campaign targeting seniors to highlight Republican Sen. Rick Scott’s push to have Congress to reauthorize legislation every five years. The proposal in the 11-point plan from Scott, a Florida Republican and chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is the focus of Facebook ads funded by the Democratic National Committee aimed at seniors in Senate battleground states. The ads feature questions from a Fox News Channel anchor about whether Scott’s plan would ‘sunset’ Social Security and Medicare, or require Congress to vote periodically to keep the programs running.”
'Wisconsin: Up North News: Not Letting It Go: National Democrats to Keep Hitting Ron Johnson on GOP Plan to Raise Taxes'
“In a new ad that started running on Facebook Thursday morning, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) uses the words of Fox News Sunday anchor John Roberts as he interviews Sen. Rick Scott, the Florida head of the Senate Republicans’ campaign committee and author of the plan. Scott is seen as Roberts recites the plan back to him, but never heard.”
Florida: Florida Politics: Democrats bet seniors won’t like Rick Scott plan to ‘rescue America’
“‘Florida seniors depend on the Medicare and Social Security benefits they’ve been paying into for decades to access life-saving care and afford basic necessities — and Republicans are putting their right to these hard-earned benefits in jeopardy. Without these crucial programs, more than 4.6 million Floridians could stand to face higher costs, and Democrats are committed to spending every day between now and November making sure that voters know it,’ said DNC States Communications Director Brooke Goren.”
'Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Capital-Star: New Dem ad in Pa. hits GOP plan to sunset Medicare, Social Security'
“A new Democratic National Committee ad, launching today in Pennsylvania and seven other, key battleground states, keeps up that drumbeat of criticism, warning a critical audience — seniors on Facebook — that their ‘hard-earned benefits’ are under attack by the GOP.”
'Georgia: Atlanta Journal Constitution: The Jolt'
“The Democratic National Committee launched an ad buy Thursday that targets older Georgia residents with messages attacking Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott’s tax plan. The ad, which will run on Facebook, highlights concerns that the proposal would raise the federal income tax for about half of U.S. residents.” (DNC)
I saw at least one of these earlier in the year. I was pleasantly surprised. Let's hope no one can miss them going forward.
I look forward to watching GOP members of Congress seeking re-election and Republicans running for the first time forced by the media in campaign appearances and other places forced to answer on the record their positions on saving Social Security and other entitlement program and justify any changes they want to make.
You mean like the Supreme Court nominees were forced to go on record that they would leave Roe alone?? I would not believe even one word that comes out of their mouths.
I hate to suggest it, but the Democrats need to hold their collective nose and pay to run it on Fox. Preaching to the choir is all well and good but if we are going to stop the Republican dissembling of our democracy and society Democrats need to get on the media too many are getting their alternative facts from. Of course, whether Murdoch and company will accept even their paid-for message is another issue.
Term probably coined by right wing side! Like the words ‘welfare cheats’ which is used to denigrate individuals falsely receiving $$$$, but more welfare $$$ is siphoned by phony business scams than by individuals.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." Dwight Eisenhower.
Michael I said that this AM! I look forward to the inevitable jargon and word salads they will produce, the inevitable gaffs as truths slip out, the gymnastics of defense, and the memes to follow. Really? Y'all REALLY want to try-in 2022- to weaken SOCIAL SECURITY? Hahahahaha.
Gratitude, dear Fern, as always for your work, your research and sharing, connecting all of us through information, ever weaving our webs of joyful communion.
Don’t you love “sunset” Medicare and Social Security? The ad should state that EVERY Republican wants to DESTROY and CRUSH the greatest, most successful and most decent Social programs in our 250+ year history. So you can live in a cargo shipping container eating dog food, with four other takers to provide heat, for all they care.
This Mr. Nice guy reasoning with Fascist Oligarchs and their legions of frontal lobe damaged minions is what got us here on the cliff edge today.
I am a senior who lives in Michigan; I have not seen anything at all that would alert voters to the Republican’s plan to sunset Social Security. If I bring it up with my friends, they don’t believe me, and pretty much shut me up 😩.
Sorry to hear that. If you have any elected representatives in the Democratic Party you could call their offices and or call the Democratic National Committee to ask staff member about ads in Michigan.
You can reach the Michigan Democratic Party using our contact form below, by phone, or email.
Yes, I would like that as well. Are you three hours ahead of me? Let us set of a day and time to meet here. It is after 8 AM here now. It would be good to consider my time at 5 PM or 7PM today, Please let me know. Tomorrow at 10 AM my time would be fine. Please pick 2 of the options if you can. Cheers!
'Under fire over outreach efforts, House Democrats launch new Latino-focused ad campaign
First round targets Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas'
'House Democrats courting Latinos in the midterm elections announced a seven-figure ad campaign Thursday that uses regional dialects, accents and themes to connect to voters in battleground districts. '
'The digital, radio and print ads from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — shared first with CQ Roll Call — are the latest response to criticism that the party is losing support among Latino voters because it waited too long to start outreach efforts and treated the diverse group as monolithic, even as Republicans invested heavily in Latino outreach in recent election cycles.'
“I have always said: Latinos are not going to automatically vote for Democrats unless we come to them and woo them, show them that we are the party that actually has their backs,” said Maria Cardona, a political strategist who specializes in Latino outreach and was an informal adviser on the ad campaign.'
'Democrats in recent years have worked to tailor ads to different subsets of Hispanic and Latino voters. President Joe Biden's 2020 campaign, for instance, ran ads featuring speakers with different accents, as has the group Building Back Together, which promotes the president's policy agenda. Cardona and DCCC strategists said the timing of this campaign — three months before the election — was a positive change in strategy.'
“In cycles past, these ads would not have been on the air until about two weeks before the election — that to me speaks volumes as to how Democrats have learned and how they have understood this is not a community you can take for granted,” she said. (RollCall)
Heyt Fern!! Has anyone done a calculation where they take one person's payments into the system for, say, 40 years and what that would earn them in SS benefits per month compared to what they would "save" if they didn't have to pay into the system but used that same amount to save for themselves? When I was in my thirties, I grumbled that I had to pay this tax. Now that I'm this shy of 70, it has turned out to be a good investment!
Actually, I don’t think it’s a hard calculation to make. As I was approaching my 60s, as did my husband as he was getting close to retirement, I received regular notices from Social Security telling me what my award benefit would be when I reached my age of benefit. It also enumerated my contributions by year. Extrapolation with those figures gives you the answer, unless you really want to get into the dirt of the economics and figure in the prevailing savings account interest rates. I think, though, the folks who might be interested in that sort of minutia, may also be involved with investing with stocks, bonds and other instruments of that type as alternatives. I believe the point of Social Security being codified the way it is is *because* most investments or savings program, except for FDIC protected savings in banks, are inherently risky. Look at what happened 20 years ago when many pensions went belly-up and a lot of folks had to turn to IRAs, ROTH investments, etc. The feds had to step in to stabilize and protect those private programs because individuals were losing their life savings to riskier investments for the greater financial rewards. There is no perfect option that gives blanket protection for any retirement income, which is why there is a faction of politicians and individuals who dislike Social Security so much they want it dismantled.
I don't know the economics of Social Security, but I do know that the people who need it most are the ones least likely/able to set up effective savings plans on their own. Poor and lower middle-class people are generally too caught up in day-to-day expenses to save much. Social Security gives agency and dignity to ALL people (I did not have to support my parents in their later years - they had an income, despite having no savings).
That said, living on Social Security income alone is a bare-bones existence. No trips to Europe, no trips anywhere, really. No eating out, and often, medical expenses erase SSI checks for months at a time (this is where my siblings and I stepped in). Life on Social Security alone is marginal, but it is a life, and beats homelessness any day.
You describe my parents, they paid in their entire lives, and my Mom was livid when there was talk of ditching “entitlements.” She said I paid for this, it is not a gift.
My Dad was a 35 year Federal Employee, and had a good retirement pension and medical coverage after his retirement. I was hired by the county at age 27, and was fully vested in PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) after 6 months. I had mentors within the department that encouraged me to also utilize the "deferred compensation program" that went into a pre-tax program that I would collect when I retired. About 10 years in, I also started investing in a Roth IRA privately. I have medical coverage until I turn 65 and go onto Medicare. My sister has worked in retail grocery all her life, has never had any retirement/pension plan and has only intermittently had medical coverage until a few years ago when she began (at age 55) to work for a union store (when she hired on, she thought she would have to start as an apprentice checker, but the store owner looked at her 25 years experience and said "you are no apprentice", starting her as a journeyman. Through all of this, she has managed to (at my encouragement) maintain an IRA for retirement. She will make far less than I do, both from her SS and from her retirement accounts, but she will have something. Many of her coworkers will only have SS.
Thanks, Steve. This is where I wanted to head. Not a good way to put it, but forcing people to save for their future selves doesn't sound pretty but, as you put it, prevents homelessness for many.
Thank you, Betsy. I remember receiving SSA notices detailing what I put in yearly. I always thought what I put in was less than what I was told I would get. I was left thinking, "How them boys do that?"
I also remember reading how SSA was doing a good job "investing" the money until Congress decided to "borrow" from it.
𝗟𝘆𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗹 (𝗩𝗔 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗗&𝗗𝗖) - "I also remember reading how SSA was doing a good job "investing" the money until Congress decided to "borrow" from it."
𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘆 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀 - "Those same people never seem to know about the millions and billions that were taken out of the Social Security funds by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to help balance their budget or pay for their wars. Money that was NEVER replaced."
Americans' lack of Social Security knowledge is a big reason why so many misconceptions about the program exist. But if there's one myth that appears to supersede them all, it's the belief that Congress has stolen or raided Social Security's asset reserves and absconded with the money. Below are the three things you really need to know about Congress borrowing money from Social Security.
𝟭. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗻 (𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝘄) 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗱 -- The law requires that the Social Security Administration (SSA) purchase special-issue bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness ... In return for holding these bonds, the Social Security program is paid interest annually by the federal government.
𝟮. 𝗔 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 -- if you have $1,000 and you purchase a CD at your local bank, your bank hasn't stolen or raided your account. That $1,000 is still yours -- it's just not in your checking account anymore or under your mattress. Instead, it's in the form of a CD that'll yield interest over time, as well as repay your initial investment when matured.
𝟯. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 -- In 2017, the interest income from Social Security's asset reserves generated $85.1 billion of the $996.6 billion collected by the program. Over the next decade, more than $800 billion in income will be derived solely from the interest earned on Social Security's asset reserves.
Thank you, Ron!! So why are we hearing SS is going to go bankrupt in a few years? I'm asking, because I don't know. If the link you provided answers that question, I'll shut up. Going to read it right now.
Thanks, Betsy. This seems to hit the nail on the head as to why to keep Social security -- because it's virtually risk free, as opposed to other retirement plans. This is the simple bottom line everyone can understand.
Spot on Betsy. For thise who, continue to work past the age of 65 & continue to pay SSA taxes, the final SSA earned benefit increases each & every MONTH. I pad in for an extra 26 MONTHS. I am benefitting greatly now at Age 74 with significant COLA last year & anticipating maybe 9 percent COLA this year, 2022.
Lynn When I was self employed, many years ago, I paid 50% as employee and 50% as employer. It was about 14% (after taxes), which was a great self employment burden.
Two weeks before any election is too late. Can’t fathom any but white men and their dutiful spouses voting R, but when they hoodwinked the rural folks with piles of bull Schitt, the logic went out the door.
Many of us on Social Security are acutely aware that our benefits are always under attack by the Republicans. The GOP has had a burr under its saddle over Social Security since the inception of the agency. It’s only been relatively recently that the GOP has believed they could actually try to dismantle the program. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, the politicians with the least compassionate hearts for caring for the citizens least able to care for themselves also have the poorest memories for what happened less than 20 years ago when they tried to privatize Social Security. The Republicans had their heads handed to them.
Interestingly, in years gone by, when I have door-knocked for one progressive campaign or another, when I’ve walked through neighborhoods that are scarlet red, the residents who have the greatest scorn for any left-of-center candidate will also have big signs displayed telling the government, “Hands off my Social Security/Medicare.” I am bemused that these voters don’t make the connection between the politicians they vote for and the threat to their benefits.
Those same people never seem to know about the millions and billions that were taken out of the Social Security funds by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to help balance their budget or pay for their wars. Money that was NEVER replaced.
From FedSmith.com - "Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.
"The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security."
And yet, when Reagan signed the Bill, he said this:
"This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to social security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have our pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire…
"Today, all of us can look each other square in the eye and say, “We kept our promises.” We promised that we would protect the financial integrity of social security. We have. We promised that we would protect beneficiaries against any loss in current benefits. We have. And we promised to attend to the needs of those still working, not only those Americans nearing retirement but young people just entering the labor force. And we’ve done that, too…"
As I have learned and say - Never trust what a Republican, in any position, says when it comes to what they plan to do with *our* money.
In the 1980's the income cap on SS was raised dramatically as the looming prospect of Baby Boomers retiring became clearer and projections indicated (accurately) that the existing workforce's contributions would be unable to fulfill SS obligations to BBs. This raise created vast surpluses intended to be used when BB started retiring. By law (this is important) surplus SS revenue had to be "invested" in US treasuries. That is not like investing in income producing assets. But it provided the government with a large source of cash that was used to fund government programs. And reduced the deficit if the accounting was set up that way. Where else could the funds have gone? In the end raising the cap to keep SS solvent is the only answer but there are problems with that too. Nothing about this is simple or easy or perfect. But SS is one of the most efficient and successful government programs ever. Kudos to those who do the thankless job of running it everyday.
I've wondered the same thing myself, Betsy. And its not just limited to these two programs, but the many intermeshed services overall that are so critical to the communities that depend on them. I acknowledge the frustrations and limitations of actually utilizing them, but what if they weren't there at all?
Excellent point. I do that frequently; there is a photo I have of the landing vessels going into the beaches on D-Day, with "Your local antifa group at work".
Being selfish and greedy seems to be the modern Republican creed. For quite a while there they appropriated "Greed is Good" as a serious slogan, from the cautionary movie "Wall St.". I have heard/read it less since the Subprime crash, but the their Dear Leader is greed and narcissism personified.
And that is why SS has some inherent protections. Removing SS will bankrupt many seniors and eliminate them the purchasing power pool that private business depends on. The Market would crash as every senior with stocks start selling them off to replace the SS checks
Remember back when Geo.W. was president. He championed moving the Social Security Trust monies to Wall Street. I almost went bald when that thought came out! Fastest way for someone else to make a lot of money while "helping" us workers to lose everything we had placed into that program for our income safety plan.
“The transactions came in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Scott, a Republican, ran the pro-Trump Super PAC at the same time he served as a trustee of the Florida agency, the State Board of Administration. The SBA manages the state’s investments, about 80 percent of which are for the state pension fund’s 1 million members and retirees.”
The Repugnantkins are the party of NO, Michael. They have absolutely no creative ideas for the betterment of our society other than tax cuts for the most wealthy among us, those who need them the least. Social Security is simply another tax that they want to do away with, I am convinced that they are soulless, why else would they consistently want to bring harm to their fellow citizens, Rick Scott is a classic example of that type of being.
Most don’t have a clue, they just baa to the Fox and clones blather about socialism. MSM could save America (without me having to donate my last dime) if they would get the word out. Should be a news ticker on the screen non-stop…
Hi, Jeri, I think in many ways your first sentence is the deep root of the problem. We need, more than anything, a truly informed electorate. I read in today's Letter the story of this intricate plan that resulted in a remarkable transformation of the great structure of government. It took a long time, but it was done. It started with a few people who looked out their windows and didn't like what they saw. The pendulum has swung to the opposite corner based largely not on the lives of citizens but on an abstract philosophy that seems to have nothing to do with anybody.
I hear the voices on this forum making a beginning. Are we in time?
Speaking to "most-don't-have-a-clue", the role of the media in continuation of their posts simply for the greed factor of a few more ad clicks has to be continually examined. Instead of knowing when to post more truthfully when the iceberg is visibly in front of us they still do the opposite. When the former (illegitimate) POTUS gets caught stealing our nuclear secrets for either sale or hostage and the GOP heroically confronts him hopefully preserving the national security his espionage was designed to remove, CNN's lead story is,.... DOJ is in a No-win Situation!,....Really? See below:
This is a WTF moment for all of us. The DOJ quietly and non-politically just possibly saves the country and maybe the world from nuclear disaster and CNN does their patented "both sides" maneuvering for clickbait? This is really, really F'd up.
The less-read but, better researched, honest and politically accurate (said w/o bias) Salon writes within 12 hrs of the former about the very same facts and info: How Garland Turned the Tables on Trump and made his allies look Foolish
Ok, yes this doesn't even acknowledge the "Faux news" for-hire channel where staff have finally begun leaving to save whatever dignity might be possible because,... well,... everyone knows there is no truth in virtually any of their programming. But, when CNN openly plays their both-sides game when the stakes are not just democracy but nuclear destruction there simply must be ways to call them out in ways that hurt them beyond just the next news cycle.
This is now Sunday afternoon and everyone, inc me is looking for some respite before Mon AM but, just felt compelled to put this out there.
BK, Thank you for this comment. One of the final straws for me with the NYTimes was not just their obvious leaning in the direction of the money, but their insufferable self-righteousness about their admirable neutrality. The immediate examples for me were when they endorsed Clinton in one of their wonderfully written Editorial Board pieces, then followed Trump slavishly and brought half the country with them, drooling and buying subscriptions. Followed, at the last possible minute with the biggest, boldest front page headline about the re-opening of the investigation of the emails. Immediately following the election, the "personal" letter went out to "all our subscribers" congratulating their hard-working staff for the fine job they had done reporting the campaign and the integrity of their journalism and the integrity blah blah. It isn't Fox News that frightens me. They speak to and for a segment of America that is, admittedly, loud and terrifying, but they do not--yet--speak to America. The mainstream media do, as is so painfully evident in your post. The folks who listen to Fox have already made up their minds about what they think and it has nothing to do with facts. Fox just provides them with an echo. But what you've written about here and what keeps me tearing out my hair is the complete control of the news so; that what happens and what is reported are two different things and all most of us have is what we read. It is deliberate deception, absolute falsifying of facts, and the complete control of anybody who reads what they write or hears it second, third, fourth hands from someone who reads it.
YW Dean. Glad it made sense to someone else on a Sun afternoon. I should've known better to even look at CNN as we all know their playbook. Just as you rightly note about the NYT, by amount of coverage alone CNN dramatically hurt Clinton in 2016, giving TFG 3x the amt of headlines for lies, corruption and lack of any morality whatsoever. But, hey, we can can get rich beyond our dreams with ads during this cycle just by giving him overwhelmingly more coverage.
Several here in HCR's blog have begun picking up on Bill Palmer's work ( https://www.palmerreport.com ) who, while not main stream writes boldly and with a very high percentage of accuracy on his predictions. He consistently calls out the media for what we both wrote about and frankly, I am really parroting him. He wrote something years ago that always stuck with me which is, "To keep the Reps tuned in, tell them they are winning (We are Killing the Libs!). To keep the Dems tuned in, tell them they are losing (He's going to get away with it All!) and it's surprising that it pretty much plays out that way every day. Sites like the NYT & CNN try to have it both ways to get "both sides" tuned in but, sadly end up missing the mark, losing their audience and hurting the country in the process but, if we got a few more ads and took home a bit more $, who cares?
Your point of it all being "deliberate deception, absolute falsifying of facts, and the complete control,... " is spot on. The shift from news as fact-based from my childhood w/ Cronkite, Brinkley, etc) to "opinion & entertainment" and laws rewritten to allow your aptly-noted deception w/o consequences has brought us to this point. I have 40 or 50 sites for news bookmarked (no "Fox" is not on it but Charlie Syke's "Bulwark" is) and when it is clear the feeds are in that rogue-state and using a major story as clickbait I try foreign sites and after that just turn it all off.
To those who might read this and imply I am guilty of my own projections, I will openly admit yes to that. But, in the next statement I submit that when we have been put in this position simply trying to obtain fact-based news, there are No "both sides" or "whataboutisms". When one side wants democracy based on truth, the Constitution and our founding principles and the other wants fascism, autocracy and to overthrow the Govt thru policies based on lies, I choose Democracy.
If some want to call that bias,... I can Live with that.
Oh, I have the same bias except that I do wonder why those of us who call ourselves liberals and are on the right side of history and walk the moral high ground and go high when they go low, etc., blah,blah, cannot for one f-ing minute get organized and get cracking. I'm sorry if getting actively involved in politics sometimes involves getting a little muddy. Apparently, as a group, there was some point at which the decision was made that being organized and getting things done the way you think they should be done was the same thing as playing dirty politics. And we're having none of that, thank you. Secretary Clinton, a woman I admire with few reservations, spent her entire career working for women and children, had an impeccable record on all the big ethical issues, but she and her advisors couldn't be bothered to put together a halfway decent campaign. Nobody would advocate lies and corruption, authoritarianism, or a dictatorship, but could we maybe just consider the fact that if we don't get elected we can't do things the way we believe they should be? And there is no doubt at all that we are right. Doesn't do us a lick of good.
I observe that I appear to be having a tiny fit of temper. Partly it's because, having built blogs and websites from scratch without breaking a sweat, I have so far been defeated by the instructions for starting a publication on Substack a feat everyone in the known world has apparently mastered!! I started backwards, inadvertently created two identical titles, can't fix them. And, just to top off the weekend, as far as I can tell, the end of the world is here.
Goodness. I need a trash novel and some chocolate. Thank you for the Bill Palmer reference.
In Washington's third lost by less than a thousand votes by the incumbent who voted to impeach death star, part of her message was that Joe Kent who prevailed was going to wreck havoc with social security. He was endorsed by death star of course. Now the talking heads are giving the Ds a chance to win this one in November....includes Vancouver.
As affected as I was by Frances Perkin’s story, it was the concluding text that dealt a smarting gut punch. Perkins stated, and I quote, “Social Security is so firmly embedded in the American psychology today that no politician, no political party, no political group could possibly destroy this Act and still maintain our democratic system….It is safe forever,…”.
Surely a returned Perkins, surveying the American experiment nearing its third century, would be horrified by the extent to which our democracy, much less what’s left of our social safety net, is in danger of being paralyzed and pulverized. If truth be told, at least from my perspective, we have but one election to defend against a fatal weakening of democracy in the U.S.
I, along with a host of others, fear the false grievances that the 2020 election was stolen could lay the groundwork for Republicans to retake one, possibly both, U.S. Chambers in November. Were that to happen, Republicans would have captured, at every turn, the dynamic of the political conversation in the country, leaving but a small window to protect the key mechanisms of American democracy. Further down the road, Republicans plausibly could retain control of Congress and win the White House, conceivably precipitating both a fatal weakening of American civic institutions and also a Presidency eager and able to consolidate power, wherein the rule of law could be subjected to an individual.
Note I haven’t even mentioned Republicans, who ruthlessly are organizing to fill state and local positions with their own people—people who don’t believe in free and fair elections.
Lest anyone think I’m a fatalist, I would note that I start each day fortified by text penned by U.S. Supreme Court Louis Brandeis, who once wrote, “Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done.” I simply would add, in my experience, that only in retrospect is the true value of persistence in the face of difficulty revealed.
It seems to me that persistence is generally required to overcome "the force of gravity" and get anything positive done, while detractors get an easy ride by sliding down. It seems to me that TV and corporate internet creates an environment of Newspeak-like messaging, and a deficit of maintained attention that hits us with the next distraction before we can even begin to analyze and form an actionable plan for our circumstances. It seems to me that the main tool of successful public movements is managing, in a communicative way, to hold the public's attention long enough for them to see the point.
It pains me to say, good luck holding the public’s attention long enough to see anything beyond what is for supper this evening. The public attention span has been shrinking as quickly and drastically as the Western reservoirs. The dumbing down of American political education to understand the causes and effects of basic governance and policy has reached a point of fruition that has put our country in the predicament we find ourselves struggling with right now.
It took generations of active and benign neglect of the will to keep our children informed of HOW and why our country became the United States and how and WHY all the cogs and gears need to work together in order to fulfill the potential goodness and opportunities our nation was conceived to provide. If our nation does not begin to value the education of our children with the reasons our country began in the first place, we cannot expect to thrive.
Ironically, even as I wrote the words above, I realized there are too many states in our Union that not only do not value teaching the accurate events of history but actually fear the accuracy of history.
This realization has made me slump for the moment. As our mentor, Heather, is often quick to point out, we have to refuel our tanks. I need to do that now. Tomorrow is another day and I can meet it best if I’m fresh. Bye for now.
Betsy, Though I realize your comment was not addressed to me, nonetheless, I would note, that as determined as I am to remain resilient and engaged, I would not dispute one word of your commentary.
Lincoln's phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is as compact and meaningful a definition of democracy I have yet encountered. If in fact we opt for the DIY method of governance it would seem self-evident we cannot hope for optimal results, and risk steering into disaster, if we do set the agenda without knowing, reasonably well, what our circumstances are and what we are doing. The future always has the power to surprise us, but fortune favors the prepared mind. Our representatives are supposed to be our agents who use their time and expertise to carry out our agenda, but not govern "for us".
Education for a just, democratic society should always be empowering, not indoctrinating. Social "Conservatives" regard empowerment as indoctrination, but it is really the power to decide for one's self. The 2012 Texas Republican Platform stated:
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. "
If we had stuck to fixed beliefs we might still be living in caves. Also there has been a strong general movement to limit public school education to marketable skills to serve employers who are looking for interchangeable, disposable DNA based robots, when silicon and steel based tools are not sufficient. I read that Bush II's Sec. of Education wanted to get rid of liberal arts college education entirely.
We need to be asking ourselves what kind of futures are possible and which we really want, and what we would need to do to get there. Just letting the ship of state drift, or be taken by pirates, seems extremely unwise.
@J L Graham, While I appreciate your reply, frankly, when I started reading, I had expected you to include the bully pulpit, a most powerful platform and an immense opportunity from which to speak out, to advance an agenda, and to be listened to. Regrettably, because Biden frequently connects least well with audiences when he seizes upon this position of authority to address the country, we have a problem.
I understand, because Biden seems to relate best in small, personal settings, that some of his handlers want more of this. Others, with whom I agree, want a stronger, tougher Biden outlining his Party’s policy agenda in prime time instead of midday and for God’s sake taking questions instead of, more or less, exiting after he has spoken. Biden needs to appear as though there is no where else he’d rather be.
I understand the points you make and, to some degree, agree. However, I think the forceful manner which the typical "power pltform/bully pulpit" requires does not fit Biden and would come across false and less than effective. Situations like that would probably trigger (to some degree) the stammering which he works very hard to overcome. Those who look for anything they can parlay into a "weak point" (think Fox news and three of their "celebrities") would do so like a starving wild beast finding a fresh kill.
Biden seems to do his best work behind the scenes - i.e., this last Bill dealing with inflation, climate change, etc. that was being worked out with Manchin. While he often uses Harris to do someof his speaking, I think Pete Buttigieg "sells" the program best and without being rude or crude which is too often the Republican way these days. Let's face it, the primary voices from the Democrat side do not come across forcefully. Think Schumer. On the other hand, we sure don't need any of the Cruz, Hawley, McCarthy, or Jordan types.
Rusty, I subscribe to every one of your points. Still the Party needs a designated, charismatic Explainer showing, in a way that builds confidence, how the Party, despite its small majority in the House and its 50-50 Senate, is offering solutions.
The best person who ever did that was Bill Clinton. Unfortunately that won't work these days. I wonder if there is a way Biden could bring Jon Stewart into the role. Stewart already has a high credibility level and he DOES have a way of getting the message across.
Rusty, Though Stewart certainly could deliver, I believe the Party needs someone from within its leadership. I imagine, were the Party to admit, at least to itself, that it has a messaging problem, the Party could figure it out.
Ideally that would be the president, but it does not have to be. Agnew was Nixon's Ministry of demagoguery. McConnell certainly has a mouth on him, and along with shock jocks, they all do the devil's work. It might be someone who was not an official office holder, but charismatic, cool and quick witted under attack, and in command of copious stores of information. Such people as Colbert and John Oliver play part of that role, but this one needs even greater visibly and likeability.
Republicans have spent at least four decades constructing a false sense of reality that orders on psychosis. Their hold is proving powerful, but their web of lies is showing wear at the seams.
It seems like my response vanished, so apologies if I repeat.
I very much agree about the “bully” (in an older, etymological sense of the word) “pulpit” is a a key component of presidential leadership and effectiveness. It appears to me that FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ were more visibly “out there” than subsequent Democratic presidents as a matter of style, not just circumstances. As much as I admired and admire Carter as a president and person, he seemed to me (as I watched his live speeches) a weak public presenter. The same was true watching him debate him debate glib Reagan; someone like Truman would have given him what for. The president’s constituency is the whole nation, which makes it hard to reach out to everyone. Focus, clarity, and perseverance furthers.
I think it was a NYT poll I read around the time of Bush II’s re-election that rated the popularity of Bush’s positions with the general public. The ratings seemed surprisingly (since he had won or was winning) low, but the one area he was given high marks was for alleged “decisiveness” , the quality of decisions appearing to be secondary. People seem to trust a leader who is “out there”, collecting attention and commanding the narrative. Demagoguery is a cheap but reliable way to do that, but so too (with a lot more needed discipline, ethics, and effort – but also reward) were the organizing skills of MLK and Susan B. Anthony. Targeted repetition severs the tellers of truth as well as big liars. Nixon, Reagan, Bush II and Trump have all been very out there, but unlike Roosevelt, and as HCR has related, far less generous with assignment of credit for accomplishments. Unless including tyranny, leadership is not about real bullying, abuses of power, but it does require focus and clarity, and getting that message out there over and over again.
@J L Graham, I appreciate your mighty thoughtful commentary. As for your last sentence, I would add cohesion—a unifying theme that unites the discrete elements of a Party’s platform. Since hearing it for the first time, I have remained partial to the theme coined by Heather’s Herd: “We the People, all of us this time.” For me, its inclusiveness relates both to domestic policy and also to the safeguards that subject all of us to the rule of law.
Barbara Jo Krieger, That last statement of Perkins was what caught my eye as well. The intricately constructed system, decades in the making, will take less than half that effort to pull down. All of them bad seeds who seem to have lost any connection to their own humanity sweeping a slum child's only model right off the table. Goodness, how unnecessarily unhappy and dramatic. Most days my old spirit rises a little higher than that.
Dean, I fully can relate. There are days I hardly can conceive of trying to work toward a more humane society. However, because I refuse to allow decisions to be made in our name that lead to a meaner and more desperate world, I persist, believing we can work as well as we can to shape a more generous common future.
Thank you for sharing about Ms. Perkins, again, HCR. If you want a fascinating read, her biography is worth the time. She should have gotten a Medal of Honor at least... sadly denigrated by some (including my own father) as the mother of the welfare-state, she is a TRAGICALLY unknown figure in my mind. Conceptually framing the skeleton of the SS program and reeling-it-in with the support it got at the time was probably no small-feat, despite the vote-counts, but you can bet your toenails nothing like that would stand a chance with the Republican party as it is currently-entrenched.
It is profoundly-sad that the right-wing has created a new concept that they dubbed, in the 80's, the, "welfare-state." And that they tied it to social security. It (SS) was probably the best idea since the prior Roosevelt took on the Trusts and improved labor-conditions a generation before. Sadder still is the fact the SOMEHOW Congress thought that the idea of, "borrowing," against the pot of money known as the SS Trust Fund was a good idea... Those IOU's have never been paid-back and regardless of where the money was spent (and I'm sure both sides of the aisle are as guilty as the other) the fact is that it has been hollowed-out now and is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt.
Should we balance the budget: of course. Should we decrease the National Debt: heck ya. Should we reduce waste and what-not: sure. But I think a commitment needs to be made (and I have not heard a single President ever make it a priority) to reinvigorate and pay-back this Fund. It is paid into by all of us who get a W2 and it is a fundamental fiduciary responsibility of the Fed to not only take in that money from us, but to carefully manage it, secure it, and pay it back out to us. And now "they" can't. It's fraud. It's theft. It's a violation of the fundamental duty of the Federal Government to keep OUR money safe and correspondingly available when needed.
I don't hear ANY politicians, of either stripe or spot, speaking to this issue. I realize that it is not a very sexy campaign slogan, but to continue to ignore this problem is to give tacit approval to the continuing theft of OUR MONEY, from all of us. Congress 'owes' the Trust Fund about 3T dollars, I think. And the fund is not sustainable and will be out of dough in about 10 years. I think any President or person running for Congress should have a plan to pay that back...
Our reader Ron Boyd (Denver) explained further what is happening with regard to SSA and the Federal Government. Here is the link he provided for my edification. I trust you will find his helpful post to me here somewhere!
I’m sooooo glad you gave Frances Perkins her proper space. Everyone should read, “The Woman Behind New Deal” by Kirstin Downey. Perkins was an extraordinary woman.
I’m sooooo glad you gave Frances Perkins her proper space. Everyone should read, “The Woman Behind New Deal” by Kirstin Downey. Perkins was an extraordinary woman.
Thank you, Professor, for reminding us that government can work together to help its citizens. We are all recipients of the decisions and policies, social safety nets, created in the darkest times of depression.
“By the time the bill came to a vote in Congress, it was hugely popular. The vote was 371 to 33 in the House and 77 to 6 in the Senate.” Imagine today, voting for people and not party. It’s possible.
We need another Francis Perkins! We need someone with passion and persistence, and an ability to convince politicians that policies/programs/legislation that make a difference in ordinary people's lives makes the politicians popular too.
Unfortunately. today's politicians don't seem to care if they are popular. They seem to assume they can create popularity with money they get from big donors, so they only care if they are serving the big donors.
Elizabeth Warren speaks with facts and passion about all these issues. She is persuasive and eloquent. If she had been a man with a deep voice, she probably would have been nominated for President.
We have plenty of people who have the passion, persistence and ideas that Perkins brought to the table. I doubt that anyone, even as charismatic and focused as Francis Perkins, could move the stone hearts that need moving in order to accomplish what she did. Look how long, hard and fraught getting President Biden’s programs passed through Congress was. Her ideas and Biden’s are not too different in scope and compassion and forward thinking. But, getting any good legislation through the gauntlet of today’s Congressional committees, hearings and passage through both Houses and potential conference reconciliation, is almost too difficult to imagine! The deep divisions between the two parties prevent little more than pablum being made when the goal is meat and potatoes.
Yes, that's the difference now -- Republicans are stone-hearted and determined to remain that way. They've not even turned from Trump yet (not publically, at least); how much more dug in could they be? We can't depend on Congress; we, the comon people, must vote them out. We can't have the country run by a bunch of greedy rich guys who don't listen to the common people.
A term limit for legislators is the only real answer. Extend a representative’s term to 4 years so they aren’t constantly running and limit them to 8 years. Limit senators to 2 terms (12 yrs). Then, for God’s sake, overturn Citizens United and get $ out of politics.
The end result of term limits will be lobbyists running the government even more than they do now. Don't restrict the people's choice. Reform campaign financing insread
Please explain to me how telling candidates they can’t make a career out of politics AND reversing Citizens United would be telling people who they could vote for. I guess I’m a little thick today.
Let's say I voted for Jane Smith. I think she's done a good job. After x number of years I no longer have the choice to vote for her again. That is not democracy. The voters must retain the power to vote for he candidate of their choice, even when a majority of voters want to impose limits on their ability to choose. The answer to the complaints about longevity is to fix campaign finance not limit who can run.
cForrestm, how would having a law preventing someone from being on the ballot for no reason other than (too much) experience -- or, arguably, doing too good a job -- NOT limit MY choices? (Yeah, I know answering a question with a question is poor etiquette, but I don't know how else to answer.)
A related question I have is what are the odds (in your opinion) that a Rookie will do a better job than the person who earned a position through hard work?
“The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life.”
This quote from Francis Perkins should be carved into marble above the main entrance to the Capitol so every Congressperson is reminded daily of the job they were elected to do!
I think that horse has long left the station - particularly the Republican one. It is ironic to see how the two parties have completely switched philosophies over the years. Just the thought of Rpublicans honoring a woman in relation to anything fiscal would choke that horse.
Social security is the reason I have an income in retirement. After a divorce at 65 and unexpected financial losses in 2008, I awake each day, grateful that this system exists. I paid into Social Security from the time I first worked at eighteen until I retired from public service in New York at sixty. I have enough to live an independent and simple life. Thank you, Heather, for telling us about the great, courageous and forward-thinking Frances Perkins. I will now always think of her as the Guardian Angel for everyone who works for a living.
I look forward every day to read you "Letters." However, I am writing about the WEP which stands for Windfall Elimination Provision which means that certain categories of Federal Employees cannot get both an Annuity and full Social Security. This was put into effect during the Reagan Administration. I had worked 22 years under Social Security prior to joining the Federal Workforce. On my last day of employment, I was receiving my full Social Security - On the day after, my Social Security was chopped in half. It is now up for repeal. I will try and paste more info here. Dr. Linda Force
HOUSE VOTE POSSIBLE ON REPEAL OF WEP/GPO
On July 15, the Social Security Fairness Act, H.R. 82, a bill that would repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), surpassed 290 cosponsors, receiving enough support to place the bill on the House Consensus Calendar, teeing it up for a possible floor vote in September. The legislation has bipartisan support, with 206 Democratic and 87 Republican cosponsors. Thank you to every National Active & Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) member who contacted their Representative in support of this legislation.
Based on a House rule, legislation that receives 290 or more cosponsors can be placed on the House Consensus Calendar for an eventual vote. However, the legislation must remain on the calendar for 25 legislative days, or days the House is in session, while maintaining 290 or more cosponsors. Furthermore, the bill must not be marked up by its committee of jurisdiction, in this case the Committee on Ways and Means, or else the bill will be taken off the Consensus Calendar.
On, July 15, the same day H.R. 82 surpassed 290 cosponsors, its sponsor, Rep. Rodney Davis, R-IL, presented the House Office of the Clerk with the necessary cosponsors and placed the bill on the Consensus Calendar, beginning the 25-day countdown. This means a vote on H.R. 82 could occur roughly in late September; the House is not in session for the month of August.
Gathering more than 290 cosponsors and teeing up H.R. 82 for a vote is a significant achievement that required coordination between NARFE’s grassroots advocacy and lobbying efforts. NARFE advocates responded to NARFE’s calls for action, asking their lawmakers to support H.R. 82, while NARFE’s lobbyists worked strategically to build further support. Now, NARFE must work to maintain the necessary 290 cosponsors and build further support where able during the 25- day waiting period. NARFE will also monitor other legislative efforts and potential rule changes that could affect the vote on H.R. 82.
"Reaganomics". We are four decades overdue for an annual report detailing who gained, who lost and who broke even, but only as a result of Reagan's and subsequent "GOP" economic measures. I mean, did it deliver as advertised? Something to think about at the polls.
This is so very interesting and I want to thank you for alerting those of us who simply did not know about WEP. Reagan ruined welfare and well, ruined everything!
Nancy Altman has written several books about Social Security. I read the first one about the history and the ways it was amended over time. It included solutions to keep the program strong.
I am worried about the coming elections as I remember how Tea Party members had signs saying government keep your hands off my social security and medicare. All I could think was, where do you think it comes from? Don't you notice the checks are from the Treasury of the United States? Some of our fellow Americans are very scary.
I love this story. It brings tears to my eyes. We need the spirit of this fine public servant in the times we are negotiating now.
Indeed, Annabel.
Our beloved HCR is a recent-past honoree of the Center: https://francesperkinscenter.org/
Thank you, Heather, for this beautiful piece on Frances Perkins and the history of Social Security. I do agree that any political party that tries to destroy Social Security by calling it an "entitlement" will bring the wrath of the majority of the citizens down upon them. When like myself one has paid into Social Security for decades, many years at the maximum, I consider the check I get every month now in my seventies as a return on my investment. It is like having insurance for retirement. This doesn't just affect the older citizens, the younger generations will have to take care of their parents. It is a message that the Democrats and Independents should shout to the rooftop of the Capitol Dome. We, the People, all of us this time!
Thank you Cathy, the issue of "many years paying the maxium" annual limit for paying SSA taxes is a huge one. I believe the annual income limit in 2022 is around $147,000. The taxable income limit has increased every year at a steep incline since the 1980's. Now that corporations pay a minimum tax of 15% perhaps we can fund Frances Perkins' vision more fairly. Regular, direct monthly, electronic deposits into a bank account provides some debt collection protection.
I certainly wouldn't have minded paying through the entire year rather than have the Social Security payroll deduction end in June or July. The other part of the equation is the amount you get back monthly is also based partly on how much you put in. Seems like there would be a fair way to keep Social Security solvent.
There is - remove the income cap.
Absolutely! I have always thought the income cap was a bit illogical since those who can least afford the deduction from their paychecks pay for their Social Security tax with every pay period, while those for whom the deduction in their wages is unnoticeable finish their contributions quickly in that year and don’t get taxed again until the next January. I believe this is very regressive and onerous for the very individuals who need the help from that safety net the most.
Definitely a regressive tax. The percentage of SSA taxes paid by high income earners is capped whereas low to middle earners pay incressing dollars out-of-pocket EACH year. Thank you Betsy.
Agreed, Betsy !
And so many of those VOTERS who can least afford the deduction and pay throughout the year are unaware there is a cap.
Yes, and during the years my payments stopped early, I always thought it made no sense. Removing the cap on SSA income would help the system and harm no one.
There have been many excellent proposals how to amend this problem--all rejected by one party, of course. The easiest way to have kept the SS Fund stable was to have indexed the annual income cap to the federal COLA when they indexed the benefits to them.
I would ask: why is there an income cap at all? Why are we protecting the high incomes of the affluent when so many are in such need? Removing the cap will not change the lifestyles of those top earners. But it certainly would make a difference in the solvency of the program.
Remove the cap, restore financial health to the system and then give us all a raise. In fact I would think we should tie the increase in benefits not to inflation - but to the average increase in top executive pay (including stock options).
Bill The basic rationale why there is an income cap on the basis for individuals paying into the Social Security I find convoluted. There is a limit on what an individual can receive annually from Social Security. The ‘protect the rich’ purported logic was that since the payout was limited the pay in also should be limited.
Over time the income cap has been raised [on salary—don’t believe that bonuses and ‘carried interest’ are included.] In discussions about how to strengthen the financial resources of Social Security as lessening percentage of workers is paying into retirement payments for burgeoning retirees, I favor a sharp increase in the income cap.
I, too, favor a sharp increase in the income cap.
Same
Why are we protecting the incomes of the highest earners? Because of all the messaging over the years about the importance of the job creators and business leaders. The rest of us are moochers. If you chose to make a difference in a way that makes you less money, you keep paying the price. It wasn’t fiscally smart of me to “serve” in the ways that I have and continue to serve. If I hadn’t a support system or occasional medium-sized family money inheritance (made by people who were making far more of a difference in their own power and pocketbooks than I), I could not have done what I do. And I know that what I do has made a difference in many, many lives. We have to shift the conversation. This platform of members is doing just that … seeing how we can shift the conversation. Keep in mind, too, that it’s exceedingly rare for people in their twenties and thirties, no matter how smart, to yet have the wisdom and insights to do that. That’s where we more seasoned folks come in. Retirement can’t and shouldn’t stop us.
Excellent points, Deborah -- protecting so-called job creators? We've yet to feel much trickle down from Reagan economics, have we! And are there enough civic-minded wealthy folks to help the common good with their philanthropy?
And the bootstrap theory is pure theory, imo. In reality, my ancestors, grand parents, parents and I, myself, have all worked continuously and hard and have pretty much just kept our heads above water. What would I do without the SSA, the library, the post office (they are removing the local post office branch soon here in my neighborhood. Why is DeJoy still in office?),
Especially if some of us, like yourself, are in service occupations, we need support to do what we do!! At least buy me some new bootstraps; mine are very worn. And if you'd get me a reliable car, I''ll be happy to continue making visits to our shut-ins, including your elderly relatives, btw.
Additionally nurses and teachers took a beating during Covid. Many retiring due to the challenges in 2022. It’s really hard to want to sacrifice your own life for the arrogant, selfish Trumpsters who don’t care about anyone or anything.
Why indeed? I remember my father explaining the income cap to me. IIRC, he indicated that people earning more than the cap didn't need further protection from poverty. They had their own means to, say, invest in the stock market, or fine art, or real estate, or diamond mines....
There was an underlying idea that one should somehow pay one's own way.
I was too young and inexperienced to understand enough to raise any contrary points with him.
Now, I have to work hard to remember the argument he explained to me.
I guess I sorta get it...
Yes, of course, Bill. Are you theonly smart, logical person in this country! Why is this not so!! I could never understand the cap except to enhance the already wealthy.
absolutely!
And risk angering potential wealthy donors who are anti-“socialism”? Although, I wouldn’t necessarily call people who make over $147K wealthy in the sense tfg is purported to be. But, oh yeah, if you don’t make your money from actual work you don’t have to pay payroll taxes.
I absolutely agree - remove the cap!
And also raise the minimum income on which SS is taxed.
Social Security is taxed when it comes out of a person's paycheck. It was originally not taxed at all when paid. That is how it should be.
When Ronald Reagan cut taxes on the rich, he paid for part of it by starting to tax Social Security payments. There's a complicated formula, so it can be difficult to figure out how much estimated tax to pay. I think Social Security payments should not be taxed at all. But if they are, then yes, put a much higher floor on how much other income a person gets before their Social Security gets taxed.
And change the basis for the tax from Wage/Salary income to Adjusted Gross Income thereby capturing all the dividend and interest income that currently escapes taxation. Minimum income should be no lower than 150% of the poverty threshold.
That's what I've been thinking the entire time. Bump it up to 1,000,000.
The Oregon Public Employees Retirement System has shot itself in the foot by not capping eligible income for calculations. The fellow who coached football at the U of O for quite a while (21 years total working for the university) makes as much income in one month as I make in one year. To put a teacher, fireman, police officer, or public works employee in the same pool at the same rate as someone who makes 10 times their wages as a coach is ridiculous. To be fair, there is also a physician at OHSU (Oregon Health Sciences University) who makes as much/more than the coach does.
$1 million compensation is peanuts in the private equity and venture capital world. Further, most of them are compensated by “dividends”, which have no payroll tax at all - as well as a far lower tax (than income tax).
Yes it is. Peanuts. To them. Just move the comma to the left one notch as a starter. I am NOT a numbers person, so this is the easy math that I can do.
Indeed! And eliminate the WEP!!! I had 25+ years of work before my 16 years as a teacher. Because of that penalty I receive less than half of what I'm entitled to based on my non-teaching earnings (about $500/month). And it's questionable if I would be able to receive spousal benefits.
Early years wage jobs before teaching count & may reach the minimum credits. Double qualifications are not prohibited if you qualify but, paid out per a statutory formula. Community property states have a formula as well to qualify on spouse earnings. Spouse is NOT affected. Ditto ex-spouse. Consult SSA Admin.
This seems like such a simple, obvious solution. I discovered the income cap back in the 90s when I was still working and thought even then that it was unfair. Was also baffled by the number of people in my pay grade and higher who did not realize there was a cap.
What's the rationale for the cap/ I still don't know.
Thanks TC. You grabbed my favorite line. This seems so obvious, don't know why Congress can't see it.
Congress, hamstrung by the recalcitrant Republicans and the anti-democratic "tradition" of the Senate filibuster.
Oh, and reconciliation rules decided by an unelected one-person office, the "Parliamentarian."
Got it in one. I simply don't understand why the latter person has any say at all.
Simple!
Most of us here should be familiar with Thom Hartmann. His daily 3:00 PM show on Sirius Progressive station 127 is always a good fit and supportive of everything HCR writes. His article from Aug 4 is a good overview of the GOP ongoing plan to make the US an authoritarian oligarchy and not surprising, in his opinion and backed-up research, it all begins with Reagan. Have a read:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/08/04/how-stop-gop-killing-medicare-social-security-and-us
But would removing the income cap cause more wealth to rise to the top?
No, the cap is on the level of income that is taxed. Anything over the $147,000 isn't taxed for Social Security purposes. IRS figures suggest that over 50% of reported income isn't subject to OASDI taxation. The revenue generated by removing the cap and taxing that income would stabilize the Trust Funds at projected outlay levels until the late 2070s.
In my opinion, the cap will simply be raised. It has already been raised faster than inflation, I think, although I haven't run the numbers. If that approach is insufficient, then it is likely the tax rate will be raised, and perhaps a graduated tax rate introduced.
Raising the cap would gather money from those who have plenty. Raising the rate would be hard on those who scrape by.
Yes, that's why a graduated rate increase could be useful. Say a flat rate up to $150,000, and then 2% higher above that.
Right now, income above the cap pays zero into social security. On anything below the cap, it’s currently 6.2%. All we need, is to remove the cap so higher earners pay that same rate on all income.
Perkins was a real visionary and as she pointed out in that last paragraph, Social Security was amended and amended and amended. The program started out to provide a minimum level of security for every retiree and came about in an era that prized rugged individualism. It started out, not as a federal retirement program, but to provide for a small part of a retirement; the part that was enough to get by on all other things considered. The right thing to do, possibly the right amount, pretty much what neighbors in her Maine town would give to help out their neighbor. A federal source common, thereby avoiding the the vissitudes of state governments, that would protect widows, retirees, impoverished, disabled Americans.
As a practical visionary she was well aware that the charitable nature of her townspeople did not extend to giving more than a fair share, that the individual must retain their dignity and carry the larger burden along with a federal support. In the beginning, Social Security was not a retirement program, but a support where the individual had responsibility to earn and save enough upon which to retire, including a basic support, a small portion of the costs of retiring.
The cap was put on income in keeping with the times and expectation that the government would not cover everyone's retirement, 100%. The better off among all of us (especially those in employer retirement, land owning, and business owners, those whit investements) should not be expected to carry the fullest burden of the slovenly or the unfortunate. Yes, the fear of socialism and communism played in, especially in the 1930s.
In our lifetimes, we have seen Social Security become the single source for assured retirement income (plus Medicare for health coverage) for millions of low income widows and men (and women) whose life work has not consistently allowed for discretionary income and saving, investments, or home ownership which may have provided the other leg(s) of the support Perkins and FDR had in mind when creating Social Security. Federal policies that favor deregulation and profits for investors over compenation for workers and against organizing of workers increasingly stripped away discretionary income frm the very people who would have to rely on Social Security, if and when they retire, especially as employer-funded retirement benefits become increasingly rare outside government and union-organzed large companies.
There is no question, in my mind, that a cap on earning (not merely wages) be raised and actual cost to guarantee a respectable income for every retiree be pegged to an index (possibly, other than COLA or the CPI) that reflects something above subsistence for low and middle income individuals and families. Yes, I think Perkins envisioned a secure life for our nation's poorest and for those who live beyond an age or health conditions where fulltime employment should be required of them. She was wise enough to start with a federal supports program and let the people (and employers and the better off among us) achieve that end, even if it took 90 (or 100) years.
Three points I forgot. In it's original form, it was to be a guaranteed amount, neither subject to a means test (everyone would be eligible for the amount) nor dependent upon returns on investments or revenue not set aside from the contributions of American workers. This is important as the Fund for Social Security was never to be touched for any other purpose than to support the security of contributing workers and their families (and the share deferred and paid by employers). This Social Insurance (societal commitment) is one of the greatest achievements of a federal government commitment to serve the needs of every working family.
The second point I forgot to remind us of was that when the program was conceived, the earning and contributions came from the wages of a primary breadwinner (usually, male) and the single-family income remained so through much of the early decades wherein both wage earner and spouse were beneficiaries. Other social and labor policies introduced over the years for eligibility entitlement programs (federal aid for housing, welfare, insurance, food stamps, temporary assistance, unemployment insurance) would erode household wage levels and set in place expectations that every adult (the former stay-at-home spouse) should be required to earn wages and contribute to Social Security.
Finally, these related policies and restrictions had their biggest negative effects on low-income, hard to employ, and single households) quality of work (non-benefit jobs) and quality of life. Increasing numbers of them have less and less discretionary income available among the lowest 40 percent of workers who are likely to be living paycheck to paycheck or one disaster (e.g., uninsured health expense, auto repair, layoffs, eviction) away from financial insolvency. Social Security is becoming the expected primary source for retirement and is becoming more and more out of reach of those who simply will not have the second (employer-base pensions) or third leg (personal savings and investments) of retirement envisioned back in the 1930s and 1940s.
Yes… every good idea can be improved upon.
But republicans won’t say that they have plans to destroy it, just to “reawaken America” and such blather. They know better than Dems that propaganda works and the “locals” can be hoodooed. I live in the midst of them.
“Reawaken” is dog whistling code to return the nation to where it was pre the Great Depression. A time when SSN, Medicare, and any form of Federally supported safety net was non existent.
The sheer greed and disdain that Republicans and their redneck thugs and minions hold for the idea of ePluribus Unum is of course at the literal heart of the matter
Thank you Cathy and by extension Heather - you have done better than I could to express my my feelings on this subject. I too am in my 70s and my fears for the future of the country mount. And this as I study ancestors ancestors who arrived in the 1600s and their descendants. The US is turning upside down and threats to SS are only one but a critical aspect of the the world today.
You are assuming that the adult children will have means to support their parents and themselves too
My mother-in-law would have been in a world of hurt without Social Security. She would have had to come live with us, as my husband is an only child. I would’ve lost my mind! But I would have done it because I was raised to look after family. It would have been very difficult. We all have family members for whom SS is a lifeline. It is probably a lifeline for most of us.
That rugged individualism is just plain bull$!&t. So is pulling one’s self up by the bootstraps. That’s physically impossible as bootstraps are on the backs of boots. The have-mores always want the have-lesses to pay for everything. The Republicans are the have-more group. In previous decades, they were southern Democrats. The have-more group is powered by greed.The labels are just words. Let’s vote the greedy, bought and paid for have-more politicians out.
Furthermore, if you don't have shoes because of deep poverty- and all it's causes in America- you sure as hell don't have boots and their proverbial straps. The race and classism in all that doesn't need to be pointed out.
Well said. Thanks, Jenn!!
Republicans are the “want more” group. Always have been.
What if you don't have children? I rely on myself and it's a scary future.
Trying to "heart" and it's not working. My husband and I are in the same boat, as are several of our closest friends. Yes, it is scary.
Ruth-try doing this: Go to the top of the page-there 's an incomplete circle w/ an arrow @ its end to the left of the search bar box. Click on that circle/arrow to refresh the page. You should be able to click on the heart after that (but may have to repeat the circle click after a bit.
Thanks, Barbara.
I am sitting in a home right down the road from Frances’ grandmother’s home in Maine. There is construction happening on the site and it will soon be the home of the Perkins Center right here on the Damariscotta River. It is wonderful to see this important American honored.
And l hope that the murals our former governor removed from the department of labor have been found and restored which honor Frances Perkins.
The same former governor who told the NAACP to "kiss my butt"?
Yes, he is the GOP candidate for governor, again.
At least Maine now has ranked choice voting. So perhaps the state won't get "Cutlered" again. BTW wasn't Cutler busted recently? (We lived in Maine for 15 wonderful years).
Yes, we have ranked choice voting now so we won’t get ‘ cutlered’ and l believe so about Cutler. Here is a commentary about the mural removal http://contemporarycondition.blogspot.com/2011/04/where-is-labors-voice-in-our-history.html?m=1
While the debacle of having LePage elected twice with a minority of the popular vote prompted passage of ranked choice voting, I don't think it applies to the governor's race because it violates Maine's constitution.
Arlene, thank you for this link….I had no idea
Shockingly independent Eliot Cutler has been charged with having an enormous stash of child pornography on his computer.
Tut, tut. That should take care of that problem.
Yup that's him. He's a "LOSER" too. Haaahaaahahahahaha..choke. He' running for re-election...arrghh!
They're in the lobby of the Maine State Museum in Augusta.
What a delight that is- thank you, Celticroot. I am looking forward to being able to visit the Perkins Center. I was an early supporter and was once invited to a garden party on the premises, but was unable to travel at the time. Then there was Covid. But when it becomes possible, I plan to visit and will try to drag my daughter and granddaughter with me (it should be an easy sell- we are of a mind).
Follow our plans for reopening at: www.FrancesPerkinsCenter.org. Hope to see you soon!
Thanks! Looking forward to it, and will work out some way to be there!
Very excited about this project!
Thank goodness for Frances Perkins and her brilliant vision!
“Through her Tammany connections, Perkins met FDR, and when he asked her to be his Secretary of Labor, she told him that she wanted the federal government to provide unemployment insurance, health insurance, and old-age insurance. She later recalled: ‘I remember he looked so startled, and he said, ‘Well, do you think it can be done?’”
What a visionary -- what a woman! It’s an amazing story and well worth remembering her at this anniversary!
I wonder if FDR would have been as legendary if it were not for the women in his life? Frances Perkins, Eleanor Roosevelt, and perhaps his mother as well. Often, he seemed a bit of a playboy with some persuasive ladies who insisted he do the right thing.
FDR had the mind to take the suggestions of these women and other people and make them real. Give credit where credit is due, FDR was a great president for all Americans.
Neither Teddy nor Franklin were without major flaws, but they championed the common weal, not the will of plutocrats. That's a big deal in the history of world leadership.
Yes it is, especially since the Roosevelt family was a rich Dutch founder family.
Great point, J L -- world leadership for the common weal. Thank you!
Please note, I wrote "as legendary if..." I agree the man and the times were outstanding. Nevertheless, he was not particularly inclined to pay attention to striking laborers, Black people, Jews et al. It is striking to me that Frances and Eleanor were the visionaries who had personally witnessed the difficulties of disenfranchised people and prevailed with their compassion. IMO, not as much credit goes to them as it should.
When I recently read a bio of Eleanor, I was struck by her and her vision. I was less impressed by him. Nevertheless he did get some of their and his ideas passed....universal health care was supposed to be part of the package. The AMA hired to political operatives and they were successful in getting that eliminated. They went on to work for Rs.
She was crushed by his unfaithfulness. Some of her proposals, which FDR did not put into legislation quickly, were a concession to her. She asked if he wanted a divorce, but he said it would be politically ruinous, so they stayed married for appearances. "Their pain, our gain."
It would be politically ruinous....well that says it all. And it's sad for her. I knew nothing about her until I watched the series on the WWII stay of the Swedish queen (queen to be?) and decided i needed to know more. I read the most recent bio and frankly, he did not come off that well. Nor did her family in some ways and his mother either. She is now one of my favorite historical people.
They were his eyes, ears and feet. His handicap made getting around difficult. Don’t loose the good for the perfect. Franklin appreciated them. Women in those days were not appreciated ( we are not appreciated now).
I beg to differ hahahaaa...Ms Molly. I teach people to fly planes. I enjoy "appreciating" the effort they put into it. They want to learn. Call me selfish but, the satisfaction I get watching "women" become 'empowered' does it for me and they know I appreciate their importance in this "mans world".
Thank you
Molly, my computer's ability to register a "Heart" vote isn't working properly, so a comment is in order! Thank you for yours! FDR was his own man! Eleanor was her own very very remarkable self, whom I grew to admire over my lifetime. I remember when we as ignorant children superficially and ignorantly made fun of her because of her looks. As I grew older and learned more about who she was, the shame I felt was palpable. When FDR died, I sobbed as an in-love 10-year-old child, I loved him so much.
Same. It won’t let me ❤️ comments on a thread, only the top comment.
same here...I have noticed this for some time.....
While I am grateful for Substack the software seems rough around the edges is several ways. It seems to me that sometimes the ❤️ button responds instantly and sometimes seems inert, but if I click on it, the ❤️ tend to show up sooner or later, with a refresh or something.
I know enough about Eleanor Roosevelt to admire her, but I don't know very much. I was impressed by how sad my mother was when Eleanor Roosevelt died.
I highly recommend the 3 volume biography of Eleanor written by Blanche Weisen Cook. It covers how difficult her childhood was, her multiple friendships over the decades in addition to the problems related to FDR. It also discusses her life after FDR. Did you know she was the Chairperson of the drafting committee of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
My family wept too. My Dad said he and his fellow soldiers wept too as they always felt FDR had their back.
Got that right Molly. Speaking generally in a community hosted by a remarkable historian, FDR would often give the same executive task to several people & expand authority to those who prrformed well particularly in National Security matters ( eg, Lend Lease ).
My thoughts exactly. Women are often the backbone of these important programs that helped equalize community care and opportunity. Men get the kudos for many things because they had the power all along to implement. Thank goodness there are many women in politics now to help men be reminded of our history, of our people, and what American democracy is supposed to be about: For the Good of ALL The People.
I hope the VT primary carries it on! Good morning, Pensa.
Good morning, Hope! I re-read my comment and had to do a wee bit of editing!
And FDR also displayed vision and the kind of humility one wants to see in a democratic (small "d") leader by taker her counsel.
Exactly!!
How many voters have any inkling that Social Security is on the line? Not to mention Medicare and Medicaid. Maybe I've missed the GOP articulating a logical rationale for eliminating programs that are not only extremely popular but critical to the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Of course there isn't one.
'New DNC Ads Highlight GOP Putting Seniors’ Medicare and Social Security at Risk'
MAY 12, 2022
'This morning, as new polling shows the GOP plan that could sunset Medicare and Social Security after 5 years is “universally unpopular,” the DNC launched new ads targeting seniors on Facebook to make sure they know that Republicans could put their hard-earned benefits at risk.'
'The ads come as part of a push by the DNC to communicate directly with voters about Republicans’ plan that could raise taxes and sunset Medicare and Social Security. Since NRSC Chair Rick Scott announced the plan in March, the DNC and state Democratic parties have held events blasting the plan in swing states, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia, launched a digital ad buy in key states highlighting how the plan could raise taxes, and bracketed an event where Scott was promoting the plan.'
'Here’s what they’re saying about the new ads:'
'National: Roll Call: New senior-focused ads from Democrats hit Scott’s plans for Medicare, Social Security'
“Democrats are launching an ad campaign targeting seniors to highlight Republican Sen. Rick Scott’s push to have Congress to reauthorize legislation every five years. The proposal in the 11-point plan from Scott, a Florida Republican and chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is the focus of Facebook ads funded by the Democratic National Committee aimed at seniors in Senate battleground states. The ads feature questions from a Fox News Channel anchor about whether Scott’s plan would ‘sunset’ Social Security and Medicare, or require Congress to vote periodically to keep the programs running.”
'Wisconsin: Up North News: Not Letting It Go: National Democrats to Keep Hitting Ron Johnson on GOP Plan to Raise Taxes'
“In a new ad that started running on Facebook Thursday morning, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) uses the words of Fox News Sunday anchor John Roberts as he interviews Sen. Rick Scott, the Florida head of the Senate Republicans’ campaign committee and author of the plan. Scott is seen as Roberts recites the plan back to him, but never heard.”
Florida: Florida Politics: Democrats bet seniors won’t like Rick Scott plan to ‘rescue America’
“‘Florida seniors depend on the Medicare and Social Security benefits they’ve been paying into for decades to access life-saving care and afford basic necessities — and Republicans are putting their right to these hard-earned benefits in jeopardy. Without these crucial programs, more than 4.6 million Floridians could stand to face higher costs, and Democrats are committed to spending every day between now and November making sure that voters know it,’ said DNC States Communications Director Brooke Goren.”
'Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Capital-Star: New Dem ad in Pa. hits GOP plan to sunset Medicare, Social Security'
“A new Democratic National Committee ad, launching today in Pennsylvania and seven other, key battleground states, keeps up that drumbeat of criticism, warning a critical audience — seniors on Facebook — that their ‘hard-earned benefits’ are under attack by the GOP.”
'Georgia: Atlanta Journal Constitution: The Jolt'
“The Democratic National Committee launched an ad buy Thursday that targets older Georgia residents with messages attacking Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott’s tax plan. The ad, which will run on Facebook, highlights concerns that the proposal would raise the federal income tax for about half of U.S. residents.” (DNC)
I saw at least one of these earlier in the year. I was pleasantly surprised. Let's hope no one can miss them going forward.
I look forward to watching GOP members of Congress seeking re-election and Republicans running for the first time forced by the media in campaign appearances and other places forced to answer on the record their positions on saving Social Security and other entitlement program and justify any changes they want to make.
I've seen at least 4 or 5 ads in the last two days. It's a change from the past and the ads are better. I'm wondering about social media.
That's excellent!
National TV?
I cannot tell how an ad is distributed - local - state - national- by seeing it on TV.
You mean like the Supreme Court nominees were forced to go on record that they would leave Roe alone?? I would not believe even one word that comes out of their mouths.
❤️
I hate to suggest it, but the Democrats need to hold their collective nose and pay to run it on Fox. Preaching to the choir is all well and good but if we are going to stop the Republican dissembling of our democracy and society Democrats need to get on the media too many are getting their alternative facts from. Of course, whether Murdoch and company will accept even their paid-for message is another issue.
Would Fox run them, or would they refuse them? It's income, but given their extreme bias, I can imagine them turning down the revenue.
I don't understand why Soc Security is called an "entitlement" program.
We have all been contributing from our paychecks since age 16!!!
Well, we are entitled to it, after all we paid for it!
For sure. But their use implies the Govt is providing/ funding it.
Last time Iooked I believe we fund the entire government and their seditious/treasonous a$$es....still.
Term probably coined by right wing side! Like the words ‘welfare cheats’ which is used to denigrate individuals falsely receiving $$$$, but more welfare $$$ is siphoned by phony business scams than by individuals.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." Dwight Eisenhower.
You would think.
Michael I said that this AM! I look forward to the inevitable jargon and word salads they will produce, the inevitable gaffs as truths slip out, the gymnastics of defense, and the memes to follow. Really? Y'all REALLY want to try-in 2022- to weaken SOCIAL SECURITY? Hahahahaha.
Gratitude, dear Fern, as always for your work, your research and sharing, connecting all of us through information, ever weaving our webs of joyful communion.
Much better stuff on Friday worth reading from a bunch of us. HOW ARE YOU? I've been waiting for you.
Ditto!!
Kim, standing with you, sister. Fern is some of the best! 🕊❤️
Ain’t it the truth?
Don’t you love “sunset” Medicare and Social Security? The ad should state that EVERY Republican wants to DESTROY and CRUSH the greatest, most successful and most decent Social programs in our 250+ year history. So you can live in a cargo shipping container eating dog food, with four other takers to provide heat, for all they care.
This Mr. Nice guy reasoning with Fascist Oligarchs and their legions of frontal lobe damaged minions is what got us here on the cliff edge today.
Your cargo container scenario would be a good visual for an ad.
I am a senior who lives in Michigan; I have not seen anything at all that would alert voters to the Republican’s plan to sunset Social Security. If I bring it up with my friends, they don’t believe me, and pretty much shut me up 😩.
Sorry to hear that. If you have any elected representatives in the Democratic Party you could call their offices and or call the Democratic National Committee to ask staff member about ads in Michigan.
You can reach the Michigan Democratic Party using our contact form below, by phone, or email.
Michigan Democratic Party
606 Townsend Street, Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: (517) 371-5410
Fax: (517) 371-2056
General inquiries: midemparty@michigandems.com
I hope this is helpful.
Very helpful! Thank you.
I think that their brains have been rewired. That is all I can come up with.
When their checks stop coming, they will blame Hilliary or Biden!
Yea Democrats. Give 'em hell.
Loud and in a hurry. Ostriches only watch Fox and clones
You can definitely fool some of the people all of the time, but I think for some Republican-leaning others, increased buzz might start to seep in.
If not a nationwide blitz, I fear that the MAGAts won’t have a clue. However, every effort helps.
Fern, could we find a way to communicate one to one?
Yes, I would like that as well. Are you three hours ahead of me? Let us set of a day and time to meet here. It is after 8 AM here now. It would be good to consider my time at 5 PM or 7PM today, Please let me know. Tomorrow at 10 AM my time would be fine. Please pick 2 of the options if you can. Cheers!
'Under fire over outreach efforts, House Democrats launch new Latino-focused ad campaign
First round targets Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas'
'House Democrats courting Latinos in the midterm elections announced a seven-figure ad campaign Thursday that uses regional dialects, accents and themes to connect to voters in battleground districts. '
'The digital, radio and print ads from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — shared first with CQ Roll Call — are the latest response to criticism that the party is losing support among Latino voters because it waited too long to start outreach efforts and treated the diverse group as monolithic, even as Republicans invested heavily in Latino outreach in recent election cycles.'
“I have always said: Latinos are not going to automatically vote for Democrats unless we come to them and woo them, show them that we are the party that actually has their backs,” said Maria Cardona, a political strategist who specializes in Latino outreach and was an informal adviser on the ad campaign.'
'Democrats in recent years have worked to tailor ads to different subsets of Hispanic and Latino voters. President Joe Biden's 2020 campaign, for instance, ran ads featuring speakers with different accents, as has the group Building Back Together, which promotes the president's policy agenda. Cardona and DCCC strategists said the timing of this campaign — three months before the election — was a positive change in strategy.'
“In cycles past, these ads would not have been on the air until about two weeks before the election — that to me speaks volumes as to how Democrats have learned and how they have understood this is not a community you can take for granted,” she said. (RollCall)
Heyt Fern!! Has anyone done a calculation where they take one person's payments into the system for, say, 40 years and what that would earn them in SS benefits per month compared to what they would "save" if they didn't have to pay into the system but used that same amount to save for themselves? When I was in my thirties, I grumbled that I had to pay this tax. Now that I'm this shy of 70, it has turned out to be a good investment!
Actually, I don’t think it’s a hard calculation to make. As I was approaching my 60s, as did my husband as he was getting close to retirement, I received regular notices from Social Security telling me what my award benefit would be when I reached my age of benefit. It also enumerated my contributions by year. Extrapolation with those figures gives you the answer, unless you really want to get into the dirt of the economics and figure in the prevailing savings account interest rates. I think, though, the folks who might be interested in that sort of minutia, may also be involved with investing with stocks, bonds and other instruments of that type as alternatives. I believe the point of Social Security being codified the way it is is *because* most investments or savings program, except for FDIC protected savings in banks, are inherently risky. Look at what happened 20 years ago when many pensions went belly-up and a lot of folks had to turn to IRAs, ROTH investments, etc. The feds had to step in to stabilize and protect those private programs because individuals were losing their life savings to riskier investments for the greater financial rewards. There is no perfect option that gives blanket protection for any retirement income, which is why there is a faction of politicians and individuals who dislike Social Security so much they want it dismantled.
I don't know the economics of Social Security, but I do know that the people who need it most are the ones least likely/able to set up effective savings plans on their own. Poor and lower middle-class people are generally too caught up in day-to-day expenses to save much. Social Security gives agency and dignity to ALL people (I did not have to support my parents in their later years - they had an income, despite having no savings).
That said, living on Social Security income alone is a bare-bones existence. No trips to Europe, no trips anywhere, really. No eating out, and often, medical expenses erase SSI checks for months at a time (this is where my siblings and I stepped in). Life on Social Security alone is marginal, but it is a life, and beats homelessness any day.
You describe my parents, they paid in their entire lives, and my Mom was livid when there was talk of ditching “entitlements.” She said I paid for this, it is not a gift.
My Dad was a 35 year Federal Employee, and had a good retirement pension and medical coverage after his retirement. I was hired by the county at age 27, and was fully vested in PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) after 6 months. I had mentors within the department that encouraged me to also utilize the "deferred compensation program" that went into a pre-tax program that I would collect when I retired. About 10 years in, I also started investing in a Roth IRA privately. I have medical coverage until I turn 65 and go onto Medicare. My sister has worked in retail grocery all her life, has never had any retirement/pension plan and has only intermittently had medical coverage until a few years ago when she began (at age 55) to work for a union store (when she hired on, she thought she would have to start as an apprentice checker, but the store owner looked at her 25 years experience and said "you are no apprentice", starting her as a journeyman. Through all of this, she has managed to (at my encouragement) maintain an IRA for retirement. She will make far less than I do, both from her SS and from her retirement accounts, but she will have something. Many of her coworkers will only have SS.
Good for both you and your sister, Ally!
Thanks, Steve. This is where I wanted to head. Not a good way to put it, but forcing people to save for their future selves doesn't sound pretty but, as you put it, prevents homelessness for many.
Thank you, Betsy. I remember receiving SSA notices detailing what I put in yearly. I always thought what I put in was less than what I was told I would get. I was left thinking, "How them boys do that?"
I also remember reading how SSA was doing a good job "investing" the money until Congress decided to "borrow" from it.
Congress can be counted on to blather and Rob at the same time
𝗟𝘆𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗹 (𝗩𝗔 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗗&𝗗𝗖) - "I also remember reading how SSA was doing a good job "investing" the money until Congress decided to "borrow" from it."
𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘆 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀 - "Those same people never seem to know about the millions and billions that were taken out of the Social Security funds by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to help balance their budget or pay for their wars. Money that was NEVER replaced."
Americans' lack of Social Security knowledge is a big reason why so many misconceptions about the program exist. But if there's one myth that appears to supersede them all, it's the belief that Congress has stolen or raided Social Security's asset reserves and absconded with the money. Below are the three things you really need to know about Congress borrowing money from Social Security.
𝟭. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗻 (𝗯𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝘄) 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗱 -- The law requires that the Social Security Administration (SSA) purchase special-issue bonds and, to a lesser extent, certificates of indebtedness ... In return for holding these bonds, the Social Security program is paid interest annually by the federal government.
𝟮. 𝗔 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 -- if you have $1,000 and you purchase a CD at your local bank, your bank hasn't stolen or raided your account. That $1,000 is still yours -- it's just not in your checking account anymore or under your mattress. Instead, it's in the form of a CD that'll yield interest over time, as well as repay your initial investment when matured.
𝟯. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 -- In 2017, the interest income from Social Security's asset reserves generated $85.1 billion of the $996.6 billion collected by the program. Over the next decade, more than $800 billion in income will be derived solely from the interest earned on Social Security's asset reserves.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/09/23/3-myth-busting-facts-about-congress-borrowing-mone.aspx
Thank you, Ron!! So why are we hearing SS is going to go bankrupt in a few years? I'm asking, because I don't know. If the link you provided answers that question, I'll shut up. Going to read it right now.
If I recall correctly, that was during the Reagan admin . Dems fought it tooth and nail.
Thanks, Betsy. This seems to hit the nail on the head as to why to keep Social security -- because it's virtually risk free, as opposed to other retirement plans. This is the simple bottom line everyone can understand.
Plus it includes survivor benefits for minor children and disability insurance etc
Spot on Betsy. For thise who, continue to work past the age of 65 & continue to pay SSA taxes, the final SSA earned benefit increases each & every MONTH. I pad in for an extra 26 MONTHS. I am benefitting greatly now at Age 74 with significant COLA last year & anticipating maybe 9 percent COLA this year, 2022.
❤️
Don't know.
Lynell because it is matched 50/50 by employer.
Hey, Keith! Well, yeah, but I was self-employed. I know I paid a self-employment tax but don't know if it was 50/50.
Lynn When I was self employed, many years ago, I paid 50% as employee and 50% as employer. It was about 14% (after taxes), which was a great self employment burden.
Thanks, Keith. A little embarrassing not to have known. 🙄
Two weeks before any election is too late. Can’t fathom any but white men and their dutiful spouses voting R, but when they hoodwinked the rural folks with piles of bull Schitt, the logic went out the door.
❤️
Many of us on Social Security are acutely aware that our benefits are always under attack by the Republicans. The GOP has had a burr under its saddle over Social Security since the inception of the agency. It’s only been relatively recently that the GOP has believed they could actually try to dismantle the program. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, the politicians with the least compassionate hearts for caring for the citizens least able to care for themselves also have the poorest memories for what happened less than 20 years ago when they tried to privatize Social Security. The Republicans had their heads handed to them.
Interestingly, in years gone by, when I have door-knocked for one progressive campaign or another, when I’ve walked through neighborhoods that are scarlet red, the residents who have the greatest scorn for any left-of-center candidate will also have big signs displayed telling the government, “Hands off my Social Security/Medicare.” I am bemused that these voters don’t make the connection between the politicians they vote for and the threat to their benefits.
Those same people never seem to know about the millions and billions that were taken out of the Social Security funds by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to help balance their budget or pay for their wars. Money that was NEVER replaced.
From FedSmith.com - "Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.
"The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security."
And yet, when Reagan signed the Bill, he said this:
"This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to social security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have our pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire…
"Today, all of us can look each other square in the eye and say, “We kept our promises.” We promised that we would protect the financial integrity of social security. We have. We promised that we would protect beneficiaries against any loss in current benefits. We have. And we promised to attend to the needs of those still working, not only those Americans nearing retirement but young people just entering the labor force. And we’ve done that, too…"
As I have learned and say - Never trust what a Republican, in any position, says when it comes to what they plan to do with *our* money.
In the 1980's the income cap on SS was raised dramatically as the looming prospect of Baby Boomers retiring became clearer and projections indicated (accurately) that the existing workforce's contributions would be unable to fulfill SS obligations to BBs. This raise created vast surpluses intended to be used when BB started retiring. By law (this is important) surplus SS revenue had to be "invested" in US treasuries. That is not like investing in income producing assets. But it provided the government with a large source of cash that was used to fund government programs. And reduced the deficit if the accounting was set up that way. Where else could the funds have gone? In the end raising the cap to keep SS solvent is the only answer but there are problems with that too. Nothing about this is simple or easy or perfect. But SS is one of the most efficient and successful government programs ever. Kudos to those who do the thankless job of running it everyday.
Rusty, see my above response to Lynell.
I've wondered the same thing myself, Betsy. And its not just limited to these two programs, but the many intermeshed services overall that are so critical to the communities that depend on them. I acknowledge the frustrations and limitations of actually utilizing them, but what if they weren't there at all?
The absence /impact of no SS/Medicare is exactly what needs to presented to those who think SS isn't necessary.
The average American voter, don’t be bemused, be afraid.
Isn't that fascinatin?. You can talk to them until you're blue in the face and they still don't get it.
Try telling any older ones who yell about "antifa" that their dads/grandads that fought in WW2 were also "antifa"
Excellent point. I do that frequently; there is a photo I have of the landing vessels going into the beaches on D-Day, with "Your local antifa group at work".
Yup.
I speculate that their rational for ending Social Security has something to do with being selfish and greedy.
Being selfish and greedy seems to be the modern Republican creed. For quite a while there they appropriated "Greed is Good" as a serious slogan, from the cautionary movie "Wall St.". I have heard/read it less since the Subprime crash, but the their Dear Leader is greed and narcissism personified.
No doubt, and reward investment companies with our accounts so they charge exorbitant fees and put OUR tax money at risk in the stock market.
Social Security payroll taxes have been called the Mississippi River of cash flow. Wall Streeters hunger for that money everyday.
And that is why SS has some inherent protections. Removing SS will bankrupt many seniors and eliminate them the purchasing power pool that private business depends on. The Market would crash as every senior with stocks start selling them off to replace the SS checks
Remember back when Geo.W. was president. He championed moving the Social Security Trust monies to Wall Street. I almost went bald when that thought came out! Fastest way for someone else to make a lot of money while "helping" us workers to lose everything we had placed into that program for our income safety plan.
“The transactions came in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Scott, a Republican, ran the pro-Trump Super PAC at the same time he served as a trustee of the Florida agency, the State Board of Administration. The SBA manages the state’s investments, about 80 percent of which are for the state pension fund’s 1 million members and retirees.”
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/18/rick-scott-florida-pension-fund/
He is just a disgusting human being. I put the article on my reading list, as I didn’t want to start out my morning with it.😡
The Repugnantkins are the party of NO, Michael. They have absolutely no creative ideas for the betterment of our society other than tax cuts for the most wealthy among us, those who need them the least. Social Security is simply another tax that they want to do away with, I am convinced that they are soulless, why else would they consistently want to bring harm to their fellow citizens, Rick Scott is a classic example of that type of being.
Rick Scott said it out loud, that brazen, bold evil is what we must fight. They have NO shame
Most don’t have a clue, they just baa to the Fox and clones blather about socialism. MSM could save America (without me having to donate my last dime) if they would get the word out. Should be a news ticker on the screen non-stop…
Hi, Jeri, I think in many ways your first sentence is the deep root of the problem. We need, more than anything, a truly informed electorate. I read in today's Letter the story of this intricate plan that resulted in a remarkable transformation of the great structure of government. It took a long time, but it was done. It started with a few people who looked out their windows and didn't like what they saw. The pendulum has swung to the opposite corner based largely not on the lives of citizens but on an abstract philosophy that seems to have nothing to do with anybody.
I hear the voices on this forum making a beginning. Are we in time?
Speaking to "most-don't-have-a-clue", the role of the media in continuation of their posts simply for the greed factor of a few more ad clicks has to be continually examined. Instead of knowing when to post more truthfully when the iceberg is visibly in front of us they still do the opposite. When the former (illegitimate) POTUS gets caught stealing our nuclear secrets for either sale or hostage and the GOP heroically confronts him hopefully preserving the national security his espionage was designed to remove, CNN's lead story is,.... DOJ is in a No-win Situation!,....Really? See below:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/11/politics/justice-department-trump-fury-analysis/index.html
This is a WTF moment for all of us. The DOJ quietly and non-politically just possibly saves the country and maybe the world from nuclear disaster and CNN does their patented "both sides" maneuvering for clickbait? This is really, really F'd up.
The less-read but, better researched, honest and politically accurate (said w/o bias) Salon writes within 12 hrs of the former about the very same facts and info: How Garland Turned the Tables on Trump and made his allies look Foolish
https://www.salon.com/2022/08/12/how-merrick-garland-turned-the-tables-on--and-made-allies-look-foolish/
Ok, yes this doesn't even acknowledge the "Faux news" for-hire channel where staff have finally begun leaving to save whatever dignity might be possible because,... well,... everyone knows there is no truth in virtually any of their programming. But, when CNN openly plays their both-sides game when the stakes are not just democracy but nuclear destruction there simply must be ways to call them out in ways that hurt them beyond just the next news cycle.
This is now Sunday afternoon and everyone, inc me is looking for some respite before Mon AM but, just felt compelled to put this out there.
BK, Thank you for this comment. One of the final straws for me with the NYTimes was not just their obvious leaning in the direction of the money, but their insufferable self-righteousness about their admirable neutrality. The immediate examples for me were when they endorsed Clinton in one of their wonderfully written Editorial Board pieces, then followed Trump slavishly and brought half the country with them, drooling and buying subscriptions. Followed, at the last possible minute with the biggest, boldest front page headline about the re-opening of the investigation of the emails. Immediately following the election, the "personal" letter went out to "all our subscribers" congratulating their hard-working staff for the fine job they had done reporting the campaign and the integrity of their journalism and the integrity blah blah. It isn't Fox News that frightens me. They speak to and for a segment of America that is, admittedly, loud and terrifying, but they do not--yet--speak to America. The mainstream media do, as is so painfully evident in your post. The folks who listen to Fox have already made up their minds about what they think and it has nothing to do with facts. Fox just provides them with an echo. But what you've written about here and what keeps me tearing out my hair is the complete control of the news so; that what happens and what is reported are two different things and all most of us have is what we read. It is deliberate deception, absolute falsifying of facts, and the complete control of anybody who reads what they write or hears it second, third, fourth hands from someone who reads it.
YW Dean. Glad it made sense to someone else on a Sun afternoon. I should've known better to even look at CNN as we all know their playbook. Just as you rightly note about the NYT, by amount of coverage alone CNN dramatically hurt Clinton in 2016, giving TFG 3x the amt of headlines for lies, corruption and lack of any morality whatsoever. But, hey, we can can get rich beyond our dreams with ads during this cycle just by giving him overwhelmingly more coverage.
Several here in HCR's blog have begun picking up on Bill Palmer's work ( https://www.palmerreport.com ) who, while not main stream writes boldly and with a very high percentage of accuracy on his predictions. He consistently calls out the media for what we both wrote about and frankly, I am really parroting him. He wrote something years ago that always stuck with me which is, "To keep the Reps tuned in, tell them they are winning (We are Killing the Libs!). To keep the Dems tuned in, tell them they are losing (He's going to get away with it All!) and it's surprising that it pretty much plays out that way every day. Sites like the NYT & CNN try to have it both ways to get "both sides" tuned in but, sadly end up missing the mark, losing their audience and hurting the country in the process but, if we got a few more ads and took home a bit more $, who cares?
Your point of it all being "deliberate deception, absolute falsifying of facts, and the complete control,... " is spot on. The shift from news as fact-based from my childhood w/ Cronkite, Brinkley, etc) to "opinion & entertainment" and laws rewritten to allow your aptly-noted deception w/o consequences has brought us to this point. I have 40 or 50 sites for news bookmarked (no "Fox" is not on it but Charlie Syke's "Bulwark" is) and when it is clear the feeds are in that rogue-state and using a major story as clickbait I try foreign sites and after that just turn it all off.
To those who might read this and imply I am guilty of my own projections, I will openly admit yes to that. But, in the next statement I submit that when we have been put in this position simply trying to obtain fact-based news, there are No "both sides" or "whataboutisms". When one side wants democracy based on truth, the Constitution and our founding principles and the other wants fascism, autocracy and to overthrow the Govt thru policies based on lies, I choose Democracy.
If some want to call that bias,... I can Live with that.
Oh, I have the same bias except that I do wonder why those of us who call ourselves liberals and are on the right side of history and walk the moral high ground and go high when they go low, etc., blah,blah, cannot for one f-ing minute get organized and get cracking. I'm sorry if getting actively involved in politics sometimes involves getting a little muddy. Apparently, as a group, there was some point at which the decision was made that being organized and getting things done the way you think they should be done was the same thing as playing dirty politics. And we're having none of that, thank you. Secretary Clinton, a woman I admire with few reservations, spent her entire career working for women and children, had an impeccable record on all the big ethical issues, but she and her advisors couldn't be bothered to put together a halfway decent campaign. Nobody would advocate lies and corruption, authoritarianism, or a dictatorship, but could we maybe just consider the fact that if we don't get elected we can't do things the way we believe they should be? And there is no doubt at all that we are right. Doesn't do us a lick of good.
I observe that I appear to be having a tiny fit of temper. Partly it's because, having built blogs and websites from scratch without breaking a sweat, I have so far been defeated by the instructions for starting a publication on Substack a feat everyone in the known world has apparently mastered!! I started backwards, inadvertently created two identical titles, can't fix them. And, just to top off the weekend, as far as I can tell, the end of the world is here.
Goodness. I need a trash novel and some chocolate. Thank you for the Bill Palmer reference.
Onward into Monday!
Pleasing plutocrats is under the hood.
In Washington's third lost by less than a thousand votes by the incumbent who voted to impeach death star, part of her message was that Joe Kent who prevailed was going to wreck havoc with social security. He was endorsed by death star of course. Now the talking heads are giving the Ds a chance to win this one in November....includes Vancouver.
We was just discussing this yesterday. 🙏🏻
We will be making a donation to the D.
As affected as I was by Frances Perkin’s story, it was the concluding text that dealt a smarting gut punch. Perkins stated, and I quote, “Social Security is so firmly embedded in the American psychology today that no politician, no political party, no political group could possibly destroy this Act and still maintain our democratic system….It is safe forever,…”.
Surely a returned Perkins, surveying the American experiment nearing its third century, would be horrified by the extent to which our democracy, much less what’s left of our social safety net, is in danger of being paralyzed and pulverized. If truth be told, at least from my perspective, we have but one election to defend against a fatal weakening of democracy in the U.S.
I, along with a host of others, fear the false grievances that the 2020 election was stolen could lay the groundwork for Republicans to retake one, possibly both, U.S. Chambers in November. Were that to happen, Republicans would have captured, at every turn, the dynamic of the political conversation in the country, leaving but a small window to protect the key mechanisms of American democracy. Further down the road, Republicans plausibly could retain control of Congress and win the White House, conceivably precipitating both a fatal weakening of American civic institutions and also a Presidency eager and able to consolidate power, wherein the rule of law could be subjected to an individual.
Note I haven’t even mentioned Republicans, who ruthlessly are organizing to fill state and local positions with their own people—people who don’t believe in free and fair elections.
Lest anyone think I’m a fatalist, I would note that I start each day fortified by text penned by U.S. Supreme Court Louis Brandeis, who once wrote, “Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done.” I simply would add, in my experience, that only in retrospect is the true value of persistence in the face of difficulty revealed.
It seems to me that persistence is generally required to overcome "the force of gravity" and get anything positive done, while detractors get an easy ride by sliding down. It seems to me that TV and corporate internet creates an environment of Newspeak-like messaging, and a deficit of maintained attention that hits us with the next distraction before we can even begin to analyze and form an actionable plan for our circumstances. It seems to me that the main tool of successful public movements is managing, in a communicative way, to hold the public's attention long enough for them to see the point.
It pains me to say, good luck holding the public’s attention long enough to see anything beyond what is for supper this evening. The public attention span has been shrinking as quickly and drastically as the Western reservoirs. The dumbing down of American political education to understand the causes and effects of basic governance and policy has reached a point of fruition that has put our country in the predicament we find ourselves struggling with right now.
It took generations of active and benign neglect of the will to keep our children informed of HOW and why our country became the United States and how and WHY all the cogs and gears need to work together in order to fulfill the potential goodness and opportunities our nation was conceived to provide. If our nation does not begin to value the education of our children with the reasons our country began in the first place, we cannot expect to thrive.
Ironically, even as I wrote the words above, I realized there are too many states in our Union that not only do not value teaching the accurate events of history but actually fear the accuracy of history.
This realization has made me slump for the moment. As our mentor, Heather, is often quick to point out, we have to refuel our tanks. I need to do that now. Tomorrow is another day and I can meet it best if I’m fresh. Bye for now.
Betsy, Though I realize your comment was not addressed to me, nonetheless, I would note, that as determined as I am to remain resilient and engaged, I would not dispute one word of your commentary.
Lincoln's phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is as compact and meaningful a definition of democracy I have yet encountered. If in fact we opt for the DIY method of governance it would seem self-evident we cannot hope for optimal results, and risk steering into disaster, if we do set the agenda without knowing, reasonably well, what our circumstances are and what we are doing. The future always has the power to surprise us, but fortune favors the prepared mind. Our representatives are supposed to be our agents who use their time and expertise to carry out our agenda, but not govern "for us".
Education for a just, democratic society should always be empowering, not indoctrinating. Social "Conservatives" regard empowerment as indoctrination, but it is really the power to decide for one's self. The 2012 Texas Republican Platform stated:
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. "
If we had stuck to fixed beliefs we might still be living in caves. Also there has been a strong general movement to limit public school education to marketable skills to serve employers who are looking for interchangeable, disposable DNA based robots, when silicon and steel based tools are not sufficient. I read that Bush II's Sec. of Education wanted to get rid of liberal arts college education entirely.
We need to be asking ourselves what kind of futures are possible and which we really want, and what we would need to do to get there. Just letting the ship of state drift, or be taken by pirates, seems extremely unwise.
Like
❤️
@J L Graham, While I appreciate your reply, frankly, when I started reading, I had expected you to include the bully pulpit, a most powerful platform and an immense opportunity from which to speak out, to advance an agenda, and to be listened to. Regrettably, because Biden frequently connects least well with audiences when he seizes upon this position of authority to address the country, we have a problem.
I understand, because Biden seems to relate best in small, personal settings, that some of his handlers want more of this. Others, with whom I agree, want a stronger, tougher Biden outlining his Party’s policy agenda in prime time instead of midday and for God’s sake taking questions instead of, more or less, exiting after he has spoken. Biden needs to appear as though there is no where else he’d rather be.
I understand the points you make and, to some degree, agree. However, I think the forceful manner which the typical "power pltform/bully pulpit" requires does not fit Biden and would come across false and less than effective. Situations like that would probably trigger (to some degree) the stammering which he works very hard to overcome. Those who look for anything they can parlay into a "weak point" (think Fox news and three of their "celebrities") would do so like a starving wild beast finding a fresh kill.
Biden seems to do his best work behind the scenes - i.e., this last Bill dealing with inflation, climate change, etc. that was being worked out with Manchin. While he often uses Harris to do someof his speaking, I think Pete Buttigieg "sells" the program best and without being rude or crude which is too often the Republican way these days. Let's face it, the primary voices from the Democrat side do not come across forcefully. Think Schumer. On the other hand, we sure don't need any of the Cruz, Hawley, McCarthy, or Jordan types.
Rusty, I subscribe to every one of your points. Still the Party needs a designated, charismatic Explainer showing, in a way that builds confidence, how the Party, despite its small majority in the House and its 50-50 Senate, is offering solutions.
The best person who ever did that was Bill Clinton. Unfortunately that won't work these days. I wonder if there is a way Biden could bring Jon Stewart into the role. Stewart already has a high credibility level and he DOES have a way of getting the message across.
Rusty, Though Stewart certainly could deliver, I believe the Party needs someone from within its leadership. I imagine, were the Party to admit, at least to itself, that it has a messaging problem, the Party could figure it out.
Ideally that would be the president, but it does not have to be. Agnew was Nixon's Ministry of demagoguery. McConnell certainly has a mouth on him, and along with shock jocks, they all do the devil's work. It might be someone who was not an official office holder, but charismatic, cool and quick witted under attack, and in command of copious stores of information. Such people as Colbert and John Oliver play part of that role, but this one needs even greater visibly and likeability.
Republicans have spent at least four decades constructing a false sense of reality that orders on psychosis. Their hold is proving powerful, but their web of lies is showing wear at the seams.
@J L Graham, In lieu of repeating myself, I refer you to my most recent reply to Rusty regarding Jamie Raskin.
It seems like my response vanished, so apologies if I repeat.
I very much agree about the “bully” (in an older, etymological sense of the word) “pulpit” is a a key component of presidential leadership and effectiveness. It appears to me that FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ were more visibly “out there” than subsequent Democratic presidents as a matter of style, not just circumstances. As much as I admired and admire Carter as a president and person, he seemed to me (as I watched his live speeches) a weak public presenter. The same was true watching him debate him debate glib Reagan; someone like Truman would have given him what for. The president’s constituency is the whole nation, which makes it hard to reach out to everyone. Focus, clarity, and perseverance furthers.
I think it was a NYT poll I read around the time of Bush II’s re-election that rated the popularity of Bush’s positions with the general public. The ratings seemed surprisingly (since he had won or was winning) low, but the one area he was given high marks was for alleged “decisiveness” , the quality of decisions appearing to be secondary. People seem to trust a leader who is “out there”, collecting attention and commanding the narrative. Demagoguery is a cheap but reliable way to do that, but so too (with a lot more needed discipline, ethics, and effort – but also reward) were the organizing skills of MLK and Susan B. Anthony. Targeted repetition severs the tellers of truth as well as big liars. Nixon, Reagan, Bush II and Trump have all been very out there, but unlike Roosevelt, and as HCR has related, far less generous with assignment of credit for accomplishments. Unless including tyranny, leadership is not about real bullying, abuses of power, but it does require focus and clarity, and getting that message out there over and over again.
@J L Graham, I appreciate your mighty thoughtful commentary. As for your last sentence, I would add cohesion—a unifying theme that unites the discrete elements of a Party’s platform. Since hearing it for the first time, I have remained partial to the theme coined by Heather’s Herd: “We the People, all of us this time.” For me, its inclusiveness relates both to domestic policy and also to the safeguards that subject all of us to the rule of law.
Fatalism lurks, hold Brandeis close
Jeri, As might we all.
Barbara Jo Krieger, That last statement of Perkins was what caught my eye as well. The intricately constructed system, decades in the making, will take less than half that effort to pull down. All of them bad seeds who seem to have lost any connection to their own humanity sweeping a slum child's only model right off the table. Goodness, how unnecessarily unhappy and dramatic. Most days my old spirit rises a little higher than that.
Dean, I fully can relate. There are days I hardly can conceive of trying to work toward a more humane society. However, because I refuse to allow decisions to be made in our name that lead to a meaner and more desperate world, I persist, believing we can work as well as we can to shape a more generous common future.
Thank you for sharing about Ms. Perkins, again, HCR. If you want a fascinating read, her biography is worth the time. She should have gotten a Medal of Honor at least... sadly denigrated by some (including my own father) as the mother of the welfare-state, she is a TRAGICALLY unknown figure in my mind. Conceptually framing the skeleton of the SS program and reeling-it-in with the support it got at the time was probably no small-feat, despite the vote-counts, but you can bet your toenails nothing like that would stand a chance with the Republican party as it is currently-entrenched.
It is profoundly-sad that the right-wing has created a new concept that they dubbed, in the 80's, the, "welfare-state." And that they tied it to social security. It (SS) was probably the best idea since the prior Roosevelt took on the Trusts and improved labor-conditions a generation before. Sadder still is the fact the SOMEHOW Congress thought that the idea of, "borrowing," against the pot of money known as the SS Trust Fund was a good idea... Those IOU's have never been paid-back and regardless of where the money was spent (and I'm sure both sides of the aisle are as guilty as the other) the fact is that it has been hollowed-out now and is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt.
Should we balance the budget: of course. Should we decrease the National Debt: heck ya. Should we reduce waste and what-not: sure. But I think a commitment needs to be made (and I have not heard a single President ever make it a priority) to reinvigorate and pay-back this Fund. It is paid into by all of us who get a W2 and it is a fundamental fiduciary responsibility of the Fed to not only take in that money from us, but to carefully manage it, secure it, and pay it back out to us. And now "they" can't. It's fraud. It's theft. It's a violation of the fundamental duty of the Federal Government to keep OUR money safe and correspondingly available when needed.
I don't hear ANY politicians, of either stripe or spot, speaking to this issue. I realize that it is not a very sexy campaign slogan, but to continue to ignore this problem is to give tacit approval to the continuing theft of OUR MONEY, from all of us. Congress 'owes' the Trust Fund about 3T dollars, I think. And the fund is not sustainable and will be out of dough in about 10 years. I think any President or person running for Congress should have a plan to pay that back...
<exits soapbox> (but remains angry)
1000%, H. Alan. Ponzi would be proud.
Our reader Ron Boyd (Denver) explained further what is happening with regard to SSA and the Federal Government. Here is the link he provided for my edification. I trust you will find his helpful post to me here somewhere!
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/09/23/3-myth-busting-facts-about-congress-borrowing-mone.aspx
That said, I am inclined to walk back my "Ponzi" snark comment.
Long overdue
This should be taught in every school and the name Frances Perkins should be known.
All members of Congress should know it. All of them.
We agree! www.FrancesPerkinsCenter.org
I’d love to read a biography of Frances Perkins, assuming one exists. Recommendations, anyone?
This might be a good contact to find one:
https://francesperkinscenter.org/life-new/
This is from another poster:
I’m sooooo glad you gave Frances Perkins her proper space. Everyone should read, “The Woman Behind New Deal” by Kirstin Downey. Perkins was an extraordinary woman.
Here is what a google search turned up:
https://www.google.com/search?q=biography+frances+perkins&sxsrf=ALiCzsbhRVUD0QD4gMgbCd1fImcS5XavPQ%3A1660485433828&source=hp&ei=Of_4YsHNLZy80PEPpf-TkAo&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYvkNSSlhuvybJ_BJ0rXaEPbr1IzpZdh9&oq=biography+francis+per&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIGCAAQHhAWMgYIABAeEBYyBQgAEIYDMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgM6BAgjECc6BAguECc6BAguEEM6EQguEIAEELEDEIMBEMcBENEDOggILhCxAxCDAToLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAEIAEELEDOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToICC4QgAQQsQM6CwguEIAEELEDEIMBOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARDRAzoRCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QMQ1AI6BQgAEIAEOg0IABCABBCxAxBGEPkBOggIABAeEA8QFlAAWJUhYIIyaABwAHgBgAH7A4gB3RWSAQwxNC40LjAuMi4wLjGYAQCgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz#wptab=si:AC1wQDBkemGQghgLdJ4nO4j_LUfNeGqcROshtlxwkxJN3xp-cj130dktvJOyWzHAA1JSo6-EuRoJmGCsE3sXtrk4fxYdll6YyjBfUZuv8GS0zIYh1dL-JzBJuVC5PnzNRe-LWHzXbBUU
Thanks, Ally! I love biographies.
Same. I grew up reading "The Childhood of Famous Americans" series, and the love of biographies has stayed with me!
I’m sooooo glad you gave Frances Perkins her proper space. Everyone should read, “The Woman Behind New Deal” by Kirstin Downey. Perkins was an extraordinary woman.
Thank you, Professor, for reminding us that government can work together to help its citizens. We are all recipients of the decisions and policies, social safety nets, created in the darkest times of depression.
“By the time the bill came to a vote in Congress, it was hugely popular. The vote was 371 to 33 in the House and 77 to 6 in the Senate.” Imagine today, voting for people and not party. It’s possible.
It's "possible" but not probable with the current philosophy and "leadership" of the Republican Party.
We need another Francis Perkins! We need someone with passion and persistence, and an ability to convince politicians that policies/programs/legislation that make a difference in ordinary people's lives makes the politicians popular too.
Unfortunately. today's politicians don't seem to care if they are popular. They seem to assume they can create popularity with money they get from big donors, so they only care if they are serving the big donors.
Elizabeth Warren speaks with facts and passion about all these issues. She is persuasive and eloquent. If she had been a man with a deep voice, she probably would have been nominated for President.
I also admire Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota who speaks well about current problems.
We have plenty of people who have the passion, persistence and ideas that Perkins brought to the table. I doubt that anyone, even as charismatic and focused as Francis Perkins, could move the stone hearts that need moving in order to accomplish what she did. Look how long, hard and fraught getting President Biden’s programs passed through Congress was. Her ideas and Biden’s are not too different in scope and compassion and forward thinking. But, getting any good legislation through the gauntlet of today’s Congressional committees, hearings and passage through both Houses and potential conference reconciliation, is almost too difficult to imagine! The deep divisions between the two parties prevent little more than pablum being made when the goal is meat and potatoes.
Repubs have gummed the works and are so proud. They love that they have the power to make so much grind to a halt…
Yes, that's the difference now -- Republicans are stone-hearted and determined to remain that way. They've not even turned from Trump yet (not publically, at least); how much more dug in could they be? We can't depend on Congress; we, the comon people, must vote them out. We can't have the country run by a bunch of greedy rich guys who don't listen to the common people.
A term limit for legislators is the only real answer. Extend a representative’s term to 4 years so they aren’t constantly running and limit them to 8 years. Limit senators to 2 terms (12 yrs). Then, for God’s sake, overturn Citizens United and get $ out of politics.
The end result of term limits will be lobbyists running the government even more than they do now. Don't restrict the people's choice. Reform campaign financing insread
scrowel2, I agree. The thought of being told who I can vote for is repulsive.
Please explain to me how telling candidates they can’t make a career out of politics AND reversing Citizens United would be telling people who they could vote for. I guess I’m a little thick today.
Let's say I voted for Jane Smith. I think she's done a good job. After x number of years I no longer have the choice to vote for her again. That is not democracy. The voters must retain the power to vote for he candidate of their choice, even when a majority of voters want to impose limits on their ability to choose. The answer to the complaints about longevity is to fix campaign finance not limit who can run.
cForrestm, how would having a law preventing someone from being on the ballot for no reason other than (too much) experience -- or, arguably, doing too good a job -- NOT limit MY choices? (Yeah, I know answering a question with a question is poor etiquette, but I don't know how else to answer.)
A related question I have is what are the odds (in your opinion) that a Rookie will do a better job than the person who earned a position through hard work?
“The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life.”
This quote from Francis Perkins should be carved into marble above the main entrance to the Capitol so every Congressperson is reminded daily of the job they were elected to do!
I think that horse has long left the station - particularly the Republican one. It is ironic to see how the two parties have completely switched philosophies over the years. Just the thought of Rpublicans honoring a woman in relation to anything fiscal would choke that horse.
How very right you are, Rusty, on both counts. Wishful thinking . . .
The decision is clear. Spread the word.
Social security is the reason I have an income in retirement. After a divorce at 65 and unexpected financial losses in 2008, I awake each day, grateful that this system exists. I paid into Social Security from the time I first worked at eighteen until I retired from public service in New York at sixty. I have enough to live an independent and simple life. Thank you, Heather, for telling us about the great, courageous and forward-thinking Frances Perkins. I will now always think of her as the Guardian Angel for everyone who works for a living.
I look forward every day to read you "Letters." However, I am writing about the WEP which stands for Windfall Elimination Provision which means that certain categories of Federal Employees cannot get both an Annuity and full Social Security. This was put into effect during the Reagan Administration. I had worked 22 years under Social Security prior to joining the Federal Workforce. On my last day of employment, I was receiving my full Social Security - On the day after, my Social Security was chopped in half. It is now up for repeal. I will try and paste more info here. Dr. Linda Force
HOUSE VOTE POSSIBLE ON REPEAL OF WEP/GPO
On July 15, the Social Security Fairness Act, H.R. 82, a bill that would repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), surpassed 290 cosponsors, receiving enough support to place the bill on the House Consensus Calendar, teeing it up for a possible floor vote in September. The legislation has bipartisan support, with 206 Democratic and 87 Republican cosponsors. Thank you to every National Active & Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) member who contacted their Representative in support of this legislation.
Based on a House rule, legislation that receives 290 or more cosponsors can be placed on the House Consensus Calendar for an eventual vote. However, the legislation must remain on the calendar for 25 legislative days, or days the House is in session, while maintaining 290 or more cosponsors. Furthermore, the bill must not be marked up by its committee of jurisdiction, in this case the Committee on Ways and Means, or else the bill will be taken off the Consensus Calendar.
On, July 15, the same day H.R. 82 surpassed 290 cosponsors, its sponsor, Rep. Rodney Davis, R-IL, presented the House Office of the Clerk with the necessary cosponsors and placed the bill on the Consensus Calendar, beginning the 25-day countdown. This means a vote on H.R. 82 could occur roughly in late September; the House is not in session for the month of August.
Gathering more than 290 cosponsors and teeing up H.R. 82 for a vote is a significant achievement that required coordination between NARFE’s grassroots advocacy and lobbying efforts. NARFE advocates responded to NARFE’s calls for action, asking their lawmakers to support H.R. 82, while NARFE’s lobbyists worked strategically to build further support. Now, NARFE must work to maintain the necessary 290 cosponsors and build further support where able during the 25- day waiting period. NARFE will also monitor other legislative efforts and potential rule changes that could affect the vote on H.R. 82.
I also do not receive the SS benefit I was due because of the WEP. If that were to change it would sure impact my life.
"Reaganomics". We are four decades overdue for an annual report detailing who gained, who lost and who broke even, but only as a result of Reagan's and subsequent "GOP" economic measures. I mean, did it deliver as advertised? Something to think about at the polls.
This is so very interesting and I want to thank you for alerting those of us who simply did not know about WEP. Reagan ruined welfare and well, ruined everything!
Nancy Altman has written several books about Social Security. I read the first one about the history and the ways it was amended over time. It included solutions to keep the program strong.
I am worried about the coming elections as I remember how Tea Party members had signs saying government keep your hands off my social security and medicare. All I could think was, where do you think it comes from? Don't you notice the checks are from the Treasury of the United States? Some of our fellow Americans are very scary.