Not So Social
Do young people support private accounts? I went to an empty room to find out.
By Dana Goldstein, Campus Progress
Tuesday August 15, 2006
Why are conservatives obsessed with “reforming” Social Security? And why are they so determined to cast college students as the face of their misguided, politically unpopular, dead-in-the-water privatization policy? To find out, I wrangled at the National Press Club in DC on Monday with President Bush’s first employer, a young conservative, and a Russian television crew.
The occasion was Social Security’s 71st anniversary, and to celebrate, I appeared live on C-SPAN to debate Mount Holyoke student Jo Jensen on the merits of so-called private accounts. The event was hosted by the 60 Plus Association, an AARP competitor that caters to jet-setting retirees rich enough to eschew government programs such as Social Security and Medicare. 60 Plus advocates two ideas: introducing Social Security private accounts and eliminating the estate tax, which its president, Jim Martin, has helped re-brand as the “death tax.” In combination, these two policies would give a big hand-out to the rich, hurting the majority of working Americans in the process.
If Bush’s scheme of cuts and privatization were ever to be enacted, the situation would be especially dire for our generation: a medium income worker born in 1980 would experience a 16 percent reduction in benefits under conservative privatization proposals. A high income worker born in 1980 would see a benefit cut of 28 percent. For younger workers, cuts would be even steeper. Conservatives refuse to engage these numbers. In fact, the only statistic Jensen, the young conservative C-SPAN debater, cited in her remarks was that more college students supposedly believe they will see a UFO than receive Social Security benefits in their lifetime. It’s good to know my peers have a sense of humor.
Indeed, it’s ironic that an organization called Students for Saving Social Security (S4) even exists. Jensen is the deputy director of this K Street, Astroturf group that claims to have “thousands” of members agitating for private accounts on campuses nationwide, but couldn’t fill seats at Monday’s event with pro-privatization college students, even though Washington is swimming with summer interns from across the political spectrum. When I arrived at the National Press Club, I met Martin (a former Republican Hill staffer who in 1968 gave recent Yale graduate George W. Bush his first job on a Florida Senate campaign), Jensen, several other staffers associated with 60 Plus and S4, the C-SPAN crew, and a reporter and cameraman for a Russian news network. Until about 10 Campus Progress-ers showed up, the rest of the seats were completely empty—no press, no young activists, no curious bystanders.
That might be because politically, Social Security privatization is incredibly unpopular. Congress won’t touch it. According to numerous polls, less than 1/3 of Americans support Bush’s proposal. Coming up on the midterm elections, you’d think conservatives would want to talk about something more unifying. You know—like providing affordable health care, child care, and a college education to all Americans, or finding our way out of the quagmire in Iraq. But I guess not.
Social Security privatization is little more than a distraction from the tragically ineffectual domestic and foreign policies of the Bush Administration. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be able to pay out 100 percent of expected benefits until 2052, and after that it will be able to provide 80 percent. The average American would enjoy a larger guaranteed Social Security pay-out under the current system than under the system of cuts and privatizations President Bush floated in 2005—even if nothing whatsoever is done to make up for the 20 percent budget shortfall. Furthermore, rescinding Bush’s tax cuts to just the top 1 percent of earners would more than make up for the expected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.
Privatization is ridiculously expensive—it would be the $1 trillion gorilla among Bush’s ill-conceived unfunded mandates—right up there with No Child Left Behind. But right now, Social Security is one program conservatives have yet to screw up after six years in power. It’s one of the last issues onto which they can graft their empty rhetoric of “personal choice” and “responsibility.” Economic analyses by expert non-partisan sources including the Congressional Research Service demonstrate that the privatization “choice” espoused by conservatives does little more than put middle class Americans between a rock and a hard place, opening their retirement savings up to the caprices of the stock market while drastically reducing their guaranteed monthly Social Security benefits.
As long as organizations like 60 Plus and S4 exist, I’ll be happy to show up and talk about the pitfalls of private accounts. I was grateful for the public platform, and I appreciate the courtesy extended to me by Martin and his organization. I even enjoyed the e-mail that flooded my inbox afterward: one former public school teacher thanked me for my defense of the program that makes his retirement possible, while a “keep your hands off my money” conservative called me a “valley girl” and a “tart,” even accusing me of sleeping with my “Communism professor.” I guess that’s what I should expect as a progressive young woman speaking about economics. But using fresh, young faces to debate this issue won’t rehabilitate Social Security privatization from exactly where it belongs: the political dustbin, along with so much of the Bush administration’s failed agenda.
Dana Goldstein is associate editor of CampusProgress.org.
--------
Comments
|
!
Fabulous! If you had a conservative calling you a “Valley Girl” and a “tart” I know you really gave them hell! It seems so easy to rattle these people if you actually have facts.
— Janet Moore - Aug 15, 08:40 PM - #Riveting! Somehow when confronted with facts, those who somehow find themselves with a different point of view think name calling validates their argument. Conservatives are in search of apathy and wilt when challenged. I’ll be looking for the “rerun” of the C-Span.
— Fred Berkowitz - Aug 16, 09:52 AM - #Hi Dana,
I’m a volunteer with S4, and I have to admit that i’m disappointed in your response.
Now, obviously I disagree with your conclusions, and I would even take issue with some of your facts and figures…but the real reason i’m disappointed is because when I read your article I feel as if you harbor some sort of hatred for us at S4 that goes beyond simply a policy disagreement.
Now i’m not sure what we did to you to invite such a condescending response, because I know Jo too well to think that she was anything less than pleasant to you at the event. If you truly believe you’re right, is it not enough to simply refute our claims? I can personally say, because i’ve been there for the past year, that we don’t hate you guys at CampusProgress. I have to admit that you’re not on my list of daily bookmarks, but I think that we always try to be fair and attack the idea and not the person or organization. Because in the end I think we realize that we’re all young idealistic people who are sacrificing for a cause in which we believe.
After a year of this reform debate, it seems that we just keep yelling from one side to the other, louder and louder, until we all collapse under the collective strain…only to get up and do it again tomorrow. Why is it so hard for some on both sides to give each other the benefit of the doubt?
Now, it’s a given that we all have people on each side that don’t help. The person who emailed you that called you a “valley girl” or “tart” was certainly in the wrong, and even though i’m speaking only on behalf of myself, officially, I am certain that the rest of the S4 staff would join me in condemning it. You have to understand that S4 gets its share of hate mail, but we don’t assume that it represents the official line from the other side.
Why am I even bothering to respond? Maybe it’s because I don’t think you gave us a fair shake.
So maybe we can start over…
It seems that you at least are not opposed to the idea of dialogue. I’d love to do a series of (non-live, that way we could really think about our responses) mini-debates to be cross-posted on our websites. We could take small parts of the issue at a time and argue only on the facts with the requirement that facts and figures be backed up with objective sources.
Anyway, it’s just a thought, let me know if that piques your interest. I think it could be fun and informative for everyone. You have my email address.
— Jeremy - Aug 16, 09:55 AM - #Dear Ms. Goldstein,
As a progressive young woman who speaks economics, can you shed some light on whether the idea “to get rid of tax cuts for 1% of rich people” is practically possible?
Dems want to strip off tax cuts of the rich but the Reps say that it will create a “Tax Gap”. I have no idea what “Tax Gap” is but I’ve never seen a rebuttal for this theory of “Tax Gap”.
TIA
As far as SS is concerned, my take is that the Young Americans (generally averse to politics) have not realized the sense of urgency on this issue and the middle-aged Americans have already started diverting their money from SS to IRA’s and 401K’s. I’d be interested to see the statistics on the percentage of Americans who are still contributing to SS and their confidence in reaping benefits from SSF.
Regards
— Pavan - Aug 16, 01:39 PM - #Pavan
I agree with Jeremy. I watched the debate via C-Span Online’s archived videos and was pleasantly surprised by the civility and respect both you and Jo showed for each other and your respective opinions on live camera.
However, after reading this I have to say that as a liberal I am disappointed in your need to make personal attacks on Jo and S4.
To be fair though, both sides seem to be more interested in delivering personal blows via blogs and websites than having honest, clean debate on the issues themselves.
I invite everyone to draw their own conclusions about the ideas presented by both sides on Tuesday’s Social Security debate—as well as how WELL each side presented them—by watching the debate themselves:
1) Go to http://www.c-span.org
2) Under Video Library, click the Domestic/Social link
3) Look for “Discussion on the Future of Social Security” and click to watch.
— Lyndsey - Aug 16, 04:09 PM - #I disagree with Jeremy and Lyndsey, and I have pretty high expectations in the political civility department.
You reported on the issue fairly and without making any personal attacks – the conservative astroturf group’s inability to fill any seats on this issue is relevant and worth blogging about.
— Joe - Aug 16, 05:37 PM - #Joe,
The reason we didn’t have anyone there is because we didn’t know about it until late the night before.
However, we did have an event last month on the hill to which we had about 400 interns show up.
You can see video of it here:
Google Video
Regardless, I think we should discuss our positions on the merits and not by how many people we can get to show up to a speech.
— Jeremy - Aug 16, 09:29 PM - #Removing the estate tax will drain billions of dollars in revenue from the government, while giving every rich person extra millions. Republicans use empty rhetoric to try and say this impacts “everyday American families”...NONSENSE.
Also, I see nothing in this article regarding personal attacks. Only Conservatives say this because that is what they do. The fact that the room was empty is a personal attack? ...don’t think do
They are fooling no one. Not a single reader of this forum will ever benefit from repealing estate taxes. They are for Paris Hilton, Bill Gates types. And then they insult Americans by tying it to minimum wage.
— Jason - Aug 17, 09:06 AM - #Why must you assume that because I am in favor of SS reform that I am also in favor of Estate Tax repeal?
I thought we were talking about Social Security reform.
By the way, if anyone has any specific questions about Social Security, I would be glad to answer them.
— Jeremy - Aug 17, 11:23 AM - #I have posted a response to Dana’s article
At S4’s Homepage
— Jeremy - Aug 18, 11:48 AM - #Dana,
I look forward to your response.
Thanks,
— s4jeremy - Aug 21, 10:13 PM - #Jeremy
Okay, I have something to say about the estate tax.
Painting this as a loss of government money is unfair. Here’s why. We pay taxes our entire lives in this country on our income every year, not to mention sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, etc… Then when we die, if we have alot of money or assets left over that we worked extremely hard for and want to leave them to our children, guess who has to pay more taxes. That’s right the person inheriting…That’s sick. I am the only person who has a right to own my money and I should have the right to leave it to my child without them being assessed an outrageous tax on it.
So explaining the estate tax issue as the rich begin given money from the government is bogus. It is rich people keeping their money instead of being robbed simply for the crime of being rich. But this is exactly where I differ from progressives I guess. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for the government to be in the business of redistributing wealth. Personal charity is my business, not theirs.
I won’t even get started on why I support reforming Social Security, other than to say that having roughly 13 percent taken out of each of my paychecks as a recent college graduate living in an incredibly expensive city pisses me off because I know I’ll never see a dime. Again, I should be able to own my money instead of the government taking it, spending it and screwing me over down the road by raising my taxes in order to send me a measly check after I’m 65.
— Jules - Aug 24, 02:00 PM - #I guess Dana nor anyone else from Campus Progress has anything to say about Jeremy’s analysis link to Students for Saving Social Security website. I was hoping to see someone respond to his comments. I guess you agreed with his analysis. Are yall just going to be like Congress and ignore the issue all together?
— Jason - Aug 24, 05:26 PM - #In response to the remarks I’ve read about the Estate Tax, here is a quote from FDR I think is quite good.
“The desire to provide security for one’s self and one’s family is natural and wholesome, but it is adequately served by a reasonable inheritance. Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security. In the last analysis such accumulations amount to the perpetuation of great and undesirable concentration of control in a relatively few individuals over the employment and welfare of many, many others.
— Linda - Aug 24, 06:16 PM - #Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government.
Creative enterprise is not stimulated by vast inheritances. They bless neither those who bequeath nor those who receive.”
Much of the money in most peoples’ estate has never been taxed. If someone dies and leaves a primary residence that has not been sold most of the increase in value has never been taxed. (Property taxes do not increase in proportion to increases in value.) Stocks that have increased in value and not been sold have not been taxed on the capital gain. It is worth noting that both William Gates, Sr. and Warren Buffet are in favor of keeping the estate tax and their families with certainly be affected by it.
— Jana Lane - Aug 24, 06:44 PM - #I will not comment on the subject matter as I am interested in hearing what younger people have to say on this issue. I will comment on the panel discussion that aired on C-Span. I began watching just before Ms. Goldstein was to speak. I was only half-listening for i know both sides of the debate. I turned my undivided attention to the program when the moderator responded to Ms. Goldstein’s remarks. It struck me as odd that he would respond in such a sarcastic and antagonistic tone. I was like, what the heck! I continued to watch until the end of the discussion and heard only one question from the audience, which was a good and fair question. But what suprised me most if that the moderator (Mr. Martin) didn’t even bother to shake the hand of the panelists. He ignored them, which made me wonder why he invited Ms. Goldstein (and why she accepted) given the hostile environment. Ms. Goldstein held her own and did a pretty good job.
— Artie - Aug 24, 08:09 PM - ##12 assumes that they will fall in the 0ne percentile (or whatever small % of people) who would actually be affected by the estate tax. Not only are the odds tremendously against such a thing happening for most Americans, it is simply put out there as a false choice and the argument is suspect on that basis alone.
— Brian - Aug 24, 08:27 PM - #We have thousands of years of economic history with wealth that wasnt redistributed – feudalism comes to mind. Why would anyone want to live in such a society. Wisdom (a highly valued trait remember) suggests we dont.
The false choice is this – if you benefitted greatly from society (no one gets rich in a vacuum) then you should be required to share at the end of your life. Your children will not suffer by inheriting a few million less. That is a fact. Stop whining about government involvement in your financial affairs after you are dead and gone and worry about your invasion of privacy – that is much more important to the majority of Americans since we all deserve an accountable government.
I have been reading this website for a year or more. I congratulate all the “Young Americans” who read and post here. As a “middle-aged” professor, I want to let Pavan know that most of the time, us “middle agers” have no choice except to keep contributing to our SS, and also, we feel that we must also contribute as much as possible to our 401K’s and our IRA’s, and we do everything we can just to get by day by day here in our middle aged culture. I have been doing the manditory SS thing since I was legal age to work. This was age 16, although I worked after school since the age of 14. Also, because I grew up on a farm, I was expected to do much physical work- moving irrigation pipe- since the beginnings of my memory. I am not sorry about any of this, but I do now resent the fact that I have never had the luxury of even “thinking about” such issues. In most cases, we were more interested in getting a bit of money to save for college, the issue of whether or not a 401K was good for us was not even in our radar screen.
— Val - Aug 24, 10:09 PM - #I am now, after well over 35 years of working, being faced with the reality that, if I were to be a Bush conservative, I would have one choice: Let go of all I have given, over the years, and begin to, or continue to, invest in all the corporations that have proven to be unstable and less than honest towards our own American values.
Wow, if only I could forget about all the money that I lost in the market after about 2001! And now I am expected to put all my future dreams back INTO that same market?
Get REAL.
Val,
I have two comments:
First, personal accounts would be completely voluntary. So all of the people like you who feel that they want to stay in the current system (however misguided I think that is) are perfectly free to do so. I would even go so far as to personally oppose any plan that included only mandatory PRAs.
Second, I was wondering if you might give us a better idea about what investments you lost money in during 2001. Because if you had invested in a broad mix of stocks and bonds you would have gained back all that you lost by now.
Furthermore, if you had been pursuing a dollar-cost-averaging strategy (making purchases on a regular basis), you would have made up your loss several years ago.
— s4jeremy - Aug 25, 10:37 AM - #The thing that is most confusing of this debate is that the liberal left has been a good instigator for change whereas the conservatives have been traditionally viewed as old fashioned. I can’t fathom keeping the social security system the way it is, and neither should you. The conservative populace has a point, no matter which affiliation you take.
As a young college student, it surprises many with my pro-privatization talk. I do think social security has to be changed. Those who work (period) and plan for retirement should reap higher benefits than those who rely solely on social security. There should be the option for private accounts. It isn’t a hard concept. Planning isn’t something the government should have to do for you. This is your future, plan accordingly.
Additionally, it is crazy that people want the government to leave social security alone when it is in fact a government program! Time to pay the piper!
— Brittany - Aug 25, 11:57 AM - #As a progressive, I’ve always been suspicious of Bush’s plan to privatize social security. I’ve seen Bush spend the government’s money on tax cuts for the rich, unnecessary wars, and faith based iniatives. But, I have to concede, that Jeremy’s response is quite thorough and less partisan than I expected. Frankly, I am inclined to believe private accounts are a bad idea, especially for the poor and those who don’t know how to invest, but after reading his response…I honestly am giving it a second thought. Dana, how would a progressive respond to his arguments?
— Fransisco - Aug 25, 05:35 PM - #“I can’t fathom keeping the social security system the way it is,” says Brittany.
I say, Why?
For longer than almost any gov’t program, social security has been an incredibly affective and well-run program. It still is. As pointed out, its deficits and shortfalls are easily fixed sans overhaul. Hell, if Gore’s lock-box ever caught on, then SS would remain solvent for 200 more years or so before we have this conversation again.
“Don’t use a hammer to fix a hangnail,” my grandmother told me that. My grandmother also gets a large portion of her retirement security from SS (and her husband’s military pension). Go figure.
My point is, all this agitation about over-haul is misguided at best, dishonest at worst. SS isn’t in a crisis. Iraq, medicare, public education, poverty… these are in crisis. SS is resting pretty safe. I can’t fathom destroying it in order to implement a costly and widly ditested pseudo-replacement cure.
— John O-R - Aug 28, 02:57 PM - #“As pointed out, its deficits and shortfalls are easily fixed sans overhaul. ”
As pointed out by whom? Do you have any numbers, or a source?
— s4jeremy - Aug 28, 05:35 PM - #Dana, Way to put up a question, have someone answer your question, and then never respond. I guess you are still researching a response. Will you have a response by the time Social Security runs?
— Jason - Aug 31, 12:35 PM - #I really wish she would just show up and say “thanks for responding” or something.
At this point, I suppose I can’t expect a full response.
But I was hoping for something.
— s4jeremy - Aug 31, 02:39 PM - #I guess she put her foot in her mouth and was unable to get it out so that she could respond.
— Jason - Aug 31, 05:31 PM - #Ms. Dana, Where is your response to Jeremy? Are you cleverly delaying the benefit of your response as a literary metaphor to the delays current SS payees will endure in the promised (yet not guaranteed) benefits.
— Louis - Oct 19, 10:06 AM - #Very entertaining issue. I haven’t heard of this one. It will be necessary to visit you on a thicket!
— potter - Nov 7, 04:57 AM - #