Your Social Security - They're Coming After It

Social Security is, right now, a safe, secure, over-funded government program. It is in no danger of default, and it is in now way "broken" as so many talking weasels on TV would like you to believe.

However, your Social Security is in danger right now. Both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill are about to start a massive push to "reform" entitlements--which, in their mind, necessarily includes Social Security.

On Friday, 60 Senators from both parties wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to think more seriously about reducing the deficit:

Dear President Obama:

As the Administration continues to work with Congressional leadership regarding our current budget situation, we write to inform you that we believe comprehensive deficit reduction measures are imperative and to ask you to support a broad approach to solving the problem.

As you know, a bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission. While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt. The Commission’s work also underscored the scope and breadth of our nation’s long-term fiscal challenges.

Beyond FY2011 funding decisions, we urge you to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform.

By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues. This would send a powerful message to Americans that Washington can work together to tackle this critical issue.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

(Emphasis added.) The letter was signed by Senators Mike Johanns (R-NE) and Michael Bennet (D-CO). In addition to Johanns and Bennet, the letter was signed by the following Senators:

Republicans:

Lamar Alexander (R–TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Scott Brown (R- MA), Richard Burr (R -NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH),? James Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Democrats:

John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Begich (D-AK), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Mark Udall (D- CO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Al Franken (D-MN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) , Kent Conrad (D-ND) , Mark Warner (D-VA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

You'll notice that California Senator Feinstein signed the letter, but California Senator Barbara Boxer did not. Good for Senator Boxer. (Interestingly, both Johanns and Bennet joined the Senate in 2009, so the group of Senators has chosen its youngest, least experienced (and most politiclaly sacrificable?) members as spear-carriers in this effort.)

However, despite the letter's concern that Obama "send a powerful message to Americans" that they can work together on the deficit, Americans, by and large, don't effing care about the deficit right now. Especially at the expense of Social Security:

Less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country's mounting deficit, according to a new [March 3, 2011 - ed.] Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, illustrating the challenge facing lawmakers who want voter buy-in to alter entitlement programs.

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

(Emphasis added.) Note the bolded text above. Lawmakers of both parties have already decided to cut Social Security. They just need to find a way to convince suckers in the voting public that cuts are necessary. There is a big push now, in Washington and in the Beltway media, to convince you that (1) Social Security is broke; and (2) Social Security is causing deficit problems. Neither one is true. Both are lies. Both are designed to convince you to part with your money, much as a scam artist uses fast talk and pressure to bilk you.

First, Social Security is, according to the Social Security Administration, fully funded until at least 2037. Talking-head weasels like Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post will try to convince you otherwise because the Social Security Trust Fund is composed of special Treasury Bonds. Those special Treasury Bonds were issued by the federal government as promises to repay funds that were borrowed for general expenses from an overfunded Social Security program. To restate: the federal government, for years, saw that Social Security was taking in more of your money than it was paying out to retirees, and borrowed your money, giving you a bond--a promise to repay, with interest--in return. But little talking-head weasels like Krauthammer are arguing that those bonds don't mean anything--there really isn't any money there at all! Only stacks of meaningless paper! Too bad, so sad!

Those special Treasury Bonds, the ones Krauthammer says aren't important, are promises from the federal government to the American people. And not just promises--they're just about the most important promises the government has made to you because you gave that money up on the premise that you'd get it back when you were too old to work anymore. If the government renegs now--if those 60+ Senators, and the weaselly Krauthammers of the world, get their way--it's effectively stolen your money. And left you with nothing in return.

Look, the only way people like him can take your money is if you let them convince you the money is gone, and you can't ever get it back. People like him should be fighting for you to keep your money, all that money you paid into the Social Security system, but they're not. How come?

Because they and their buddies never wanted you to have it in the first place. People like them hated the idea of Social Security from the very beginning on muddle-headed moral grounds. And now they've apparently convinced a lot of Republican and Democratic Senators you shouldn't have it, too. And those Senators are starting to work hard with the little Krauthammers of the world to take your money from you.

Social Security is no more broke now than back in 2005 when the Republicans tried to privatize it then.

Second, Social Security isn't causing the deficit. It's fully-funded at this point. It is funded by its own tax. Even Republicans who want to cut your Social Security acknowledge it

is not causing a deficit - here's Paul Ryan last month:

Social Security is not a contributor to our deficit of any material right now. Social Security is not a big driver of our debt problems.

So if the Senators above are all concerned about the deficit, why do they appear to be laying the groundwork for going after Social Security? Privatization.

In 2005, Republicans, having control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, tried to push Social Security privatization through--and the American people didn't want it. They're getting ready to try the same thing now, only they've managed to convince some Democrats to follow them now that the economy has been trashed by the Great Crash of 2008.

As recently as March 15, 2011, Republicans, with a few Democrats, defeated a bill in the House that would only have prevented privatization of Social Security. The bill was defeated 271-158, with all but one Republican voting it down. Which San Diego-area House members voted (essentially) for privatization? Bilbray, Hunter and Issa (all Republicans). Which ones voted against privatization? Davis and Filner (both Democrats).

Who would control Social Security if the fund is privatized? Banks. Private banks. You know, the same ones that gambles with everyones' money in the real estate market runup from 2002-2006, and caused the Great Crash of 2008, the crash that destroyed so many people's hard-saved earnings and destroyed so many jobs. Those banks. Those same banks that have so thoroughly corrupted our political system today.

Do you want them controlling your Social Security money? Do you want those 60+ Senators who signed that letter to Obama, or those 271 House members, to let them?

Me neither. Be sure to contact Feinstein, Bilbray, Hunter and Issa and let them know.