-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Mason <Jmason at aflcio.org>
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Because Social Security has been
> being used to cover other spending deficits, people have the sense that
they
> at best will get the defined benefits promised without any speculative
gains
> which were instead used for other purposes.
-And that's why people are receptive to the privatizers? I don't think so. According to -the polls, it's fear of losing the defined benefits, not greed for the speculative gains, -that sells people on privatization. Assure them the promised benefits will be paid, and -a large majority--65 percent in the Peter Hart poll in front of me--support leaving the -system unchanged.
True for some folks, but the age skew on support of Social Security is the problem. Retired folks are currently getting back more than they put in, so of course they support it. Those nearing retirement don't want to mess with a system they depend on.
But it is younger folks who poll out saying they believe it more likely to see UFOs than their full Social Security benefits. And even under projections that see Social Security surviving (which I believe), the payout is not great.
Social Security "unchanged" should not be mindlessly defended, since while the combination of taxes and spending over one's lifetime is mildly progressive, the immediate reality for most young, working folks is that it is an incredibly high regressive tax. Most working class families pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in income taxes and they justifiably feel that they are paying an awful lot for not great financial returns. That is the appeal of the privatizers. If the historical returns of Wall Street hold in the future, the math showing higher pensions from private savings are compelling - if dangerous given that such projected returns are averages, not guaranteed for each person.
But merely defending Social Security unchanged is lousy strategy. The reason I defend Clinton on marginal improvements is that it is better than the left in general has bothered with. There is no serious push to cut the payroll tax rate inflicted on minimum wage workers by eliminating the income cap on payroll taxes.
If the Left does not propose and fight for some serious wealth distribution to the working poor, Clinton's plan is a reasonable step in the right direction. The plan keeps social security "unchanged" with additional money to assure people, while directly transferring money to working class savers.
Despite all the static, I have yet to hear why the plan is not an improvement on what we have now.
--Nathan