I’m sure that many younger folks on Daily Kos only follow candidates’ positions on Social Security as an issue of hypothetical/philosophical importance. But for many of us, it is an issue of immediate, very real concern. With retirement age nearing, I belong to the second category. My vote is not DETERMINED by a candidate’s position on Social Security, but it is a major consideration, not just because of how it will impact me, but because it impacts or soon will impact tens of millions of Americans.
But First, A Word From Our Sponsor:
Top Comments recognizes the previous day's Top Mojo and strives to promote each day's outstanding comments through nominations made by Kossacks like you. Please send comments (before 9:30pm ET) by email to topcomments@gmail.com or by our KosMail message board.
Make sure that you include the direct link to the comment (the URL), which is available (once again! YAY!) by clicking on that comment's date/time. Please let us know your Daily Kos user name if you use email so we can credit you properly. If you send a writeup with the link, we can include that as well. The diarist reserves the right to edit all content. Please come in. You're invited to make yourself at home!
I am not writing about this tonight so much because of the candidates (though I do include their ‘stands, below), as I am because of AARP ‘promotion’ on their website encouraging political candidates to ‘Take a Stand’ on Social Security. For AARP, it seems that the only important thing is for candidates to HAVE a position on Social Security, not for that position to be a supportive or forward-thinking one. It is, in my view, an unconscionable capitulation to the ‘god’ of false equivalence. THAT a candidate has a position isn’t so important. What that position is what IS important. But to AARP, the positions, if they exist, are all essentially the same.
As described in the wikipedia ‘Overview” of AARP:
AARP is widely known for addressing issues affecting older Americans through a multitude of initiatives, including lobbying efforts at the state and national governmental level, an activity permitted by its 501(c)(4) status. The organization says that it is non-partisan and does not support, oppose or give money to any candidates or political parties.
I contend that suggesting that the important thing is for a candidate to merely HAVE a position on Social Security IS overtly partisan, and it EXCLUSIVELY favors candidates of the party seeking to undermine and DESTROY Social Security in this country.
Further in the wikipedia article on AARP, the Social Security section includes this note:
In June 2011, AARP dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits. A news release[53] emphasized "AARP has not changed its position on Social Security." In 2005 AARP led the effort to kill President George W. Bush's plan for partial privatization. AARP now has concluded that change is inevitable, and it wants to be at the table to try to minimize the pain. John Rother, AARP's policy chief and a prime mover for the new position, said "The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens.”
Rother, you political coward. TURN THE FUCKING SHIP AROUND! It cannot be done with false equivalence. It cannot be done with political cowardice. If the positions on Social Security are wrong - and, for ALL of the Republican candidates for president, they are - they must be called out for those failings. It cannot be put any more simply than that. That is your RESPONSIBILITY, as a supposed advocate for the elderly in this country.
If there is any question about the ridiculousness of this false equivalence campaign the AARP is mounting, here is the information contained on the AARP website about what those bullshit positions involve.
(Should you wish to look at the base AARP site for this issue, it may be found here.)
In each case, the link in the name is to the AARP page outlining each candidate’s ‘plan.’ The list only includes the stands of Republican candidates, because they actively and hypocritically seek Social Security’s demise. In no particular order, then ...
Bush
Bush’s details about Social Security are far more detailed than those of the other Republican candidates. But there can be no illusion that he would really support Social Security if elected president, much less improve it. Only on the surface he does not SOUND as radical as most of the rest.
Recognize that Americans are living longer, healthier lives and make it easier for those who choose to work longer.
Note to Governor Bush and any AARP official who is listening:
No one who NEEDS Social Security income in retirement works longer because they ‘choose’ to. They do it because they have no choice but to continue to seek income opportunities. And anyone who tells you different is lying.
Christie
With another comparatively detailed plan, Christie plans to begin his attack on Social Security with raising the retirement age to 69, and the early retirement age to 64.
From the AARP page:
Social Security has provided a critical safety net by helping millions of seniors to retire free from fear of falling into poverty. However, Security is not only the largest entitlement
BUZZER!!!
What do we have for our loser, judge?
Note for Governor Christie and any AARP official who is listening:
People have paid into Social Security their entire careers. It is not an entitlement, Governor, it is an earned benefit. And we understand. SS intends to help people retire free from fear of falling into poverty. You, in the party of fear, plan to reintroduce that fear and intensify it from day one of a Christie Administration.
Carson
Well, first of all recognize that Social Security when it was put in place the average age of death was 63. Now we’re looking at 80, and we did not modify the program. So right now it is scheduled to run out of money in 2033. That’s only 18 years from now, it’s not very long. Which means we are clearly going to have to do something? What I would do is for anybody age 50 and under, we would gradually start raising the age. For anybody over the age of 50 I don’t think you can do that, you’re too close. But gradually raise the age over a few decades for people who are 50 and below. For people who are 30 and below I think we should talk about giving them the ability to have individualized accounts. Into which money can be directed, it can’t be taken out, but it can be put in and they can have a say in how it’s invested.
Note to Dr. Carson and any AARP official yadda yadda:
Right, people need to start dying at an early age, like they used to, and under your administration (or that of any of your counterparts), that will be guaranteed. First do no harm, right, doctor? And then gradually start raising the age of retirement? Like in Week One? And finally ditch Social Security and privatize for young people. They won’t be able to remove money from the privatized accounts prior to retirement, but that money will be ‘in play’ for financial sharks for all the decades in between. Check. We know who you are, Doctor Carson.
Cruz
Direct quotation on the AARP site:
The reforms I would like to see – and I’m campaigning on fundamental reform to preserve entitlements. We ought to gradually increase the retirement age. We ought to change the rate of increase in benefits so that it matches inflation, rather than exceeding inflation.” He said both of those reforms would apply to “younger workers — people my age.” “And third — and this is critical — we ought to allow younger workers to keep a portion of their tax payments in a personal account that they own, that they control, that can grow at market rates, and that they can pass on to their kids and grandkids. That’s the kind of bipartisan leadership we need. And it’s what, if I’m elected in November 2016, I hope to lead the effort to make it happen and preserve and strengthen Social Security…for decades going forward.
Note to Senator Cruz and any AARP official who is listening
Right, toot that entitlement horn, you cheating SOB. Increase retirement age until the day of death, privatize Social Security for those not yet retired (dead), so that in the event they should happen to live longer, nothing will remain in those accounts.
Kasich
Essentially he says we’ll study it in a bi-partisan way before gutting it as any Republican would.
Note to Governor Kasich and any AARP official who is listening:
Words sound better than for many of the Republican candidates, but even an NYT endorsement does not change who and what you are, Governor. If you want to really distance yourself from the rest of the clowns, you’ll have to do much better than you have so far, and words can’t do it, no matter how they are polished.
Fiorina
No stand whatsoever. Punt.
Note to Ms. Fiorina and AARP flunky:
Right, SS does not rise to the level of relevance for you. You’d be happy to take those funds and use them to lower taxes on billionaires, though, wouldn’t you.
Huckabee
Pretty words, pretty words, no prospect of reasonable deeds. ‘Fair Tax Act’ x 50. (As in, he says it over and over, pertaining to Social Security)
Note to Governor Huckabee and AARP:
Right, trickle down. We know it well. It never worked, it never will work, but it will allow those who sing the praises of ‘free market’ to MANIPULATE that market to their benefit even more effectively than they are able to now. We know you care about us, Governor. In a pig’s eye.
Paul
Complete text Paul gave AARP for their website:
Combined with years of wasteful spending by decades of career politicians in Washington, the Social Security trust fund has been left in a fragile condition. Millions of Americans depend on Social Security and if we are to keep our promises to them, we can no longer ignore the fiscal state of this undoubtedly important program. Continuing to push Social Security reforms into the future will only make solving the problem harder and will require more painful changes for seniors.
During my time in the Senate, I have worked on proposals that would fix the shortfalls in the Social Security program through a gradual increase in the age of full retirement and by means testing yearly earnings, while preserving those benefits for near and current retirees. These changes would only apply to younger Americans who have time to plan for the future. As President, I will remain committed to fixing the Social Security program, while preserving the system for seniors who have planned their lives around the program and implementing reforms to save the program for younger generations.
Note to Senator Paul and any AARP official who cares enough to listen:
Right, Senator, money is ABSOLUTELY more important than any human being, and a Paul Administration would see Social Security totally gutted in less than 8 years. Former and future recipients be damned.
Rubio
As President, Marco will protect Social Security…by:
• Making no changes for those in or near retirement
These programs won’t be around for future generations unless something is done to reform them, however. For future retirees, Marco will:
• Gradually increase the retirement age for future retirees, to keep up with changes in life expectancy
• Reduce the growth in benefits for upper-income seniors while strengthening the program for low-income seniors
Note to Senator Rubio and any AARP official with integrity:
President ‘Marco,’ how dignified. Yes, we understand, Senator. We’ll wait patiently until you have banked the votes of vulnerable seniors before you will show your true colors on Social Security. Right. We TRUST you. (I know, you don’t believe that any more than we believe you.)
Santorum
“Reform and strengthen…Social Security so they are fiscally sustainable for seniors and future generations.”
– RickSantorum.com
Social Security: Raise eligibility age for future beneficiaries. Consider cutting cost-of-living increases.
– PBS Newshour, 5/27/15
Note to Senator Santorum and any AARP official who is listening:
Yes, we understand that ‘fiscally sustainable,’ in Santorum-speak, means that Social Security will be ‘reformed’ until it isn’t ‘sustainable’ in any degree. And that when you say consider cutting cost-of-living increases, you mean for US to consider it. You already have, and they are GONE in Santorum-world.
Trump
Punt. No pretense at a ‘position.’
Note to Mr. Trump and all AARP interested parties:
We know, you don’t need your saved up Social Security funds, and no one benefits more than you if no one ELSE gets theirs, either. But you don’t want to say it, because you know many seniors who will happily vote for you in their oblivious states. And you have other ideas for screwing over retirees and the elderly, we know. And how about the man with that beautiful red hat? Stand up! Stand up! What a hat!
My apologies for the cynical tone, tonight, friends. I just find it very frustrating when an organization that purports to advocate for a specific group ABDICATES that responsibility by employing false equivalence in the name of impartiality. It’s inexcusable. Do they have ‘plans?’ Technically, yes. But the reality is that the meat and potatoes of those plans undercut the AARP’s membership in egregious ways. And failing to say so is just bullshit.
On to tonight’s comments! Formatted by my dear friend, brillig!
TOP COMMENTS
Brillig's ObDisclaimer: The decision to publish each nomination lies with the evening's Diarist and/or Comment Formatter. My evenings at the helm, I try reeeeallllyy hard to publish everything without regard to content. I really do, even when I disagree personally with any given nomination. "TopCommentness" lies in the eyes of the nominator and of you, the reader - I leave the decision to you. I do not publish self-nominations (ie your own comments) and if I ruled the world, we'd all build community, supporting and uplifting instead of tearing our fellow Kossacks down.
We have had one of those rare evenings where everyone is so busy reading, writing, commenting or caucusing that no comment nominations were received. We really can’t do this without you! Please send that nomination in when you see it! (Ed. note: Fortunately I found a couple of highlighted comments!)
Highlighted by progdog, this comment by Expatgirl explained the value in limiting a diary topic in a specific way. Well done! In Expatgirl's fine diary on the subject of reproductive rights and economic equality for women.
Highlighted by Qveris, this comment by Denise Oliver Velez puts the focus on states where voters of color may finally weigh in.
Highlighted by Lisafr, this comment by POwriter is partisan, but is being included because of its thoughtfulness and its thought-provoking quality, and because it doesn’t add to the ‘tone-misery’ of the primary wars.
TOP MOJO
Top Mojo for yesterday, January 31st 2016, first comments and tip jars excluded. Thank you mik for the mojo magic! For those of you interested in How Top Mojo Works, please see his diary on FAQing Top Mojo.
TOP PICTURES
Top Pictures for yesterday, January 31st 2016. Click any picture to be taken to the full comment (blank spaces signify images whose use permissions were not set to allow use by the dkos community). Thank you jotter!