Skip to main content

With a growing acceptance that millions of Americans will face a retirement crisis, the deficit hawks’ call for cutting Social Security is losing credibility.

As the federal deficit continues to fall and the baby-boom generation enters retirement with insufficient savings to maintain their standard of living, the deficit hawks will be exposed as callous anti-tax advocates and drum majors for the 1 percent if they persist in their attack on Social Security. But the Right’s campaign to reduce benefits has always been based more on a conservative and anti-government ideology than facts.

As the United States continues to become more economically polarized, we should be talking about expanding Social Security rather than reducing benefits and forcing the cash-strapped poor and middle class to contribute more.

Two compelling arguments exist for expanding Social Security.

First, more and more Americans will need to rely on Social Security because they are unable to sock away enough savings to support their current lifestyle. Decades of stagnant and falling wages have left them unable to build up their nest eggs as employers have whittled away their benefits.

Second, the destruction of traditional, defined-benefit pensions and the failure of the 401(k) experiment means that Social Security will be the principal source of income for more and more retirees and therefore should be strengthened rather than cut.

The Retirement Crisis

Let’s take a look at the first point.

For decades, the 1 percent has waged an economic war on the rest of us.
The Right has never accepted Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which created the middle class during the post World War II years. And it has done everything it can to undermine the New Deal from the beginning.

Beginning with the Carter years in the ‘70s with the attack on government regulations, conservative class warriors started to achieve major victories--and ordinary Americans started to feel the impact in their pocketbooks. The 1 percent and their allies have been on a roll ever since President Ronald Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union in 1981.

The emergence of right-wing think tanks helped move the country to the right and create a growing acceptance of a conservative economic and political agenda that unfortunately was often supported by Democrats. Besides deregulation, this agenda included destroying unions; exporting U.S. jobs overseas; containing the growth of the federal minimum wage; breaking down the regulatory barrier between commercial and investment banks; reducing the taxes of corporations and the rich; replacing traditional pensions with the 401(k) and similar, defined contribution savings plans; ending welfare and forcing the poor into workfare and capping their lifetime benefits, and chipping away benefits like health care.

The result? A slow but steady decline of the standard of living of the vast majority of Americans who face a big financial pinch--strangulation?--in their retirement.
Signs of the looming retirement crisis:

• About half of Americans lack an employer-provided retirement plans. Millions don’t have enough cash and wealth to retire in dignity. The 2008 and 2009 financial crisis exposed the weak foundation of our economy and has forced many baby boomers to work longer than they expected.

• Just over half of adult Americans have accumulated little savings, meaning that they will have to rely on Social Security for their entire retirement income. The share of households at risk of not being able to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living after age 65 increased from 44 percent in 2007 to 53 percent in 2010, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

The median financial net worth of American households of all ages, excluding homes and cars, is $10,890, according to New York University economist Edward N. Wolff,. The figure is $61,300 for households headed by those in the 55-to-64 year bracket.
Financial planners say you should have at least ten times your annual income in savings if you wish to maintain your current lifestyle during your retirement.

• The percentage of Americans with defined benefit pensions, which guarantee a steady stream of income during retirement, has plummeted as employers have replaced them with less rich 401(k) plans. In 1980, about 40 percent of private-sector workers were covered by such plans, compared to 15 percent in 2006, according to Dept. of Labor data cited by an April report by the New America Foundation that calls for the expansion of Social Security.

• The 401(k) experiment has failed. The typical worker approaching retirement needs about $250,000 in a 401(k), according to the public policy institution Demos. Most accounts don't come close. The average is closer to $98,000, which is only a little more than a third of the recommended amount.

Strengthen Social Security

The economic squeeze on ordinary Americans makes it ludicrous to consider President Barack Obama’s “chained CPI” plan, which would reduce benefits by changing the consumer price index used to calculate the cost-of-living increases for beneficiaries. Other proposals popular in the Washington beltway include increasing the retirement age and raising contributions—steps that would fall on the backs of the poor and middle class.

So, the grim retirement prospects of millions of Americans cry out for government action. Certainly, we can’t expect corporations to respond in the low-wage and union-free Age of Wal-Mart.

Proposals exist to create a new government-supported retirement savings plan.
But the most immediate and easiest solution would to expand the Social Security system. Two thirds of seniors rely on Social Security for more than half of their income. Why not simply expand it instead of creating another program?
 What should be done to improve Social Security?

We should begin by recognizing that Social Security is fundamentally sound and that the talk about its demise is bunk.

First of all, Social Security is a very efficient program. Its administrative costs–about 2 percent of its total costs--are far below those of the parasitical financial industry, which has profited handsomely from the 401(k) hoax. Privatization would only lead to waste.

If Social Security collapses, it will be because conservatives succeed in defunding the system, which actually can be bolstered by minor changes. The system has not missed a single payment since its creation in 1935.

Social Security’s reserves are expected to run out in 2033, according to the latest trustees report After that, the system would be able to pay for 75 percent of the benefits until 2086.

But nearly 90 percent of the current shortfall could be met by eliminating the cap on the payroll tax used to fund benefits, according to the Social Security Administration. Currently, both employers and employees pay 6.2 percent on earnings, which are capped at 113,700.

Possible Solutions

Recently, a couple of proposals to expand Social Security have emerged. Hopefully, this will mark the beginning of a shift in the public debate.

In March, Sen. Tom Harkin (Dem.-IA) introduced The Strengthening Social Security Act of 2013, which calls for increasing benefits for everyone by $70 a month.

The legislation would pay for the increase by raising the cap and adopting an inflation formula that more accurately reflects the cost of living increase of seniors than the current COLA or “chained CPI.” The new formula would, for example, better account for health care expenses.

The Harkin legislation has the support of the AFL-CIO, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Alliance for Retired Americans, Campaign for Community Change, the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Education Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Strengthen Social Security Coalition, Social Security Works, the United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and United Steelworkers.

“The American Dream promises that if you work hard and play by the rules you’ll be able to save for retirement and enjoy your golden years with your grandchildren,” Harkin said when he introduced the legislation.  “We must ensure that, after a lifetime of hard work, Americans are able to retire
with dignity and financial independence.  This legislation helps to achieve that goal.”

The New American Foundation plan--written by Michael Lind, policy director, Economic Growth Program, New America Foundation, Steven Hill, researcher and author, publisher, Steven-Hill.com, Robert Hiltonsmith, policy analyst, Demos, Joshua Freedman, policy analyst, Economic Growth Program, New America Foundation--calls for restructuring Social Security and devoting one plan to retirement and a second on to disability.

“Retirement security is often thought of as three-legged ‘stool’ consisting of Social Security, employer retirement plans, and private savings,” the report says. “Social Security has been far more stable and successful than the other two legs of the stool. The reliance on these other legs of the system has resulted in a retirement security crisis for most Americans.”

Originally posted to www.thenewcrossroads.com on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:51 PM PDT.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Wonder why Obama is still pushing cuts? (4+ / 0-)

    None of his (Third Way, DLC) ideas about SS cuts hold water.  All the bogus claims have been invalidated, yet they're still out there trying to sell it.

    I wonder if Walmart's sponsoring of Third Way and Obama's hiring of Walmart execs to branches in the Executive Branch mean he's really going to push for the safety net cuts and other programs to exploit working class Americans?

    "The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Helen Thomas

    by Betty Pinson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 08:01:38 PM PDT

  •  Raising retirement age (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bygorry, OooSillyMe

    is a step in the wrong direction and fails to take into account those people who do hard labor. By the age of 60, these people should be able to retire. The fantasy of raising the retirement age is nice for office workers, but for people who work with their hands it is not a good idea.

    •  I don't think the age should be raised for anyone. (5+ / 0-)

      My mom and auntie are incredibly healthy (no disease of any kind, including high cholesterol or blood pressure). They have tons of energy for "old ladies". They are both very well educated, and have traveled around the world. Both have been in steady and happy relationships for 20-30 years. Both had rewarding and remunerative jobs. Despite having most everything in their favor, both got quite tired by about 66, 67 they were dragging ass, by 68 they'd had it and both retired! Luckily, they are boomers and have money socked away, equity in homes, etc. and will live better in retirement than they did in their working lives!!!

      My point is that even people who have jobs that they like quite well, who are very healthy, and have supportive relationships in their personal lives, etc, etc, etc... still get tired in their mid to late 60's. It's simply unreasonable to expect that any kind of worker is going to produce much past about 60-65.  If you have the umph and desire to do so... AWESOME!!!!  But to be forced to drag ass into an office job at 70 or older is simply cruel.

      Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

      by Lucy2009 on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:55:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Raising retirement age (0+ / 0-)

      I agree that the retirement age should be LOWERED for many blue-collar workers. I work at a union in NYC (DC 37, whose members are municipal employees) and many in so-called physically taxing jobs have been able to retire at 55.

  •  There is an important reason why there is a cap (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OooSillyMe

    Eliminating the cap would be a fundamental change in SocSec. I favor raising the cap and having the already very progressive benefit formula provide higher monthly income to retirees, who were lower wage workers.

    I wrote a diary about it.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 08:34:21 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site