SEARCH
Social Security: Obama Would Strengthen It, McCain Would Put Retirement at Risk |
|
 |
|
The campaign manager for Sen. John McCain has said this election “is not about issues.” According to Rick Davis, this November is all about “personalities.”
Tell that to America’s working people, as they suffer through home foreclosures or struggle to find jobs that pay the bills.
And what about the millions of those for whom Social Security will provide the primary—or only—income to support them when they retire? They have a right to know where McCain stands on the issue—and whether, under his plan, they would be forced to work long after age 65.
McCain and Sen. Barack Obama have laid out sharply contrasting visions on the nation’s most successful social safety net. Obama would support and protect Social Security, while McCain would privatize it.
Obama’s record on Social Security is clear. As a senator, he’s voted against proposals that would require deep benefit cuts. He’s pledged that as president, he would oppose benefit cuts or an increase in the retirement age. Obama also has proposed eliminating income taxes on millions of low- and middle-income senior citizens, to keep retirees secure.
In contrast, McCain called Social Security “a disgrace” and also has said if he becomes president, cuts to Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age would be “on the table.” In his decades in the Senate, McCain repeatedly has voted for plans that would undermine Social Security by diverting public funds into risky privatized accounts or opening the door to benefit cuts.
In 2005, McCain toured the country with George W. Bush to push a plan to privatize Social Security. The ultimately failed Bush proposal would have diverted Social Security funds into the stock market—and, as we’ve seen in recent months, that’s a potentially dangerous bet to make with retirement funds.
At the time, McCain’s support of privatizing Social Security was described as misguided, misleading and shameful. The Economic Policy Institute explained that privatization would devastate a program that has been crucial to generations of seniors.
The Bush administration’s privatization proposal will not “save” Social Security but will do just the opposite—it will erode a vital social insurance program that provides American workers and their families with a core level of income during retirement, disability, and early death.
Most striking: The 72-year-old McCain draws a monthly Social Security check. Like many retirees, McCain draws $1,929 a month—more than $23,000 a year—in Social Security. Unlike most retirees, though, McCain married into a multimillion-dollar fortune and, thanks to his decades in the Senate, he’s in line for a taxpayer-funded pension. He doesn’t need to worry about his financial future—but millions of retirees aren’t so lucky. They’d be devastated if Social Security was gutted through a risky privatization scheme.
According to a May 2008 report by the Social Security Administration, some 50 million people receive monthly Social Security benefits, the majority of whom are retired. While some workers are lucky enough to have pensions to sustain them, millions of retirees depend on Social Security as their primary source of income.
Despite dire warnings by pundits and Wall Street forecasters, the Social Security program has been solvent for 73 years and, at current levels, will remain solvent for decades more. It’s a robust, strong program that works and keeps retirees and the disabled out of poverty. The next generations of retirees won’t be in danger of reduced benefits—if the leaders we elect are willing to keep the promise and protect Social Security.
The millions of retirees for whom Social Security is a necessity will get a chance to choose between these two candidates this fall and determine the future for Social Security. In these final 54 days, understanding the difference will be vital.
________________________________________
Paid for by the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education Political Contributions Committee, www.aflcio.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
7 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Obama says he will “strengthen” it. How will he pay for this, other than raising (tripling?) what we pay into it? That still wouldnt be enough given the Government’s own financial projection and the increased roles that SSI pay for. His numbers don’t add up.
Dear “Notfooled” & elo on: Of course you’re not fooled; you’re bamboozled ! Either that or you are imposters & insurgents. Or what we used to call agent provacateurs. Your pig philosophy and faulty stats betray your ignorance. Oink ! Oink!
You sure are hateful in your response to me. Would you like to see my Union card? Is is possible I dont agree with you and NOT a “conspirator”?
I disagree with you, you dont see me calling you any names. If you want to disagree with me, then show some facts and try to change my mind. Ridicule only works on the weak-willed.
Do you think Social Security should be paid out to elderly legal immigrants that are in need of assistance but never paid a dime into the system?
I got SSI benefits for my son when he was born in 1995. I was unmarried and I made $8.50 an hour at a non-Union shop, plus a little overtime, and I had insurance which didnt cost too much. I STILL got state and federal benefits totaling almost $1200. We also got coupons for certain foods and juices under a state program - but all I applied for was the medical care assistance. It was far too easy to get benefits and the system is completely abuseable. I lived in a poor area near the projects and SSI and welfare fraud supplimented the incomes of those that didnt deal drugs.
How do we fix it? Either 1. Tax the heck out of the middle class, because thats where most of the tax revenue comes from or 2. Keep it alive by cutting waste, and probably benefits.
It sounds cruel, but if we do nothing, its gone and nobody has it.
Obama hasnt shown me anything that will fix it. Neither will McCain (he hasnt said what any cuts would be either)
I am 52 years old, a union member and a advocate of privatizing Social Security. At the start of SS there were over 30 workers contributing for each recipient of benefits in the program. Currently the ratio is about 2 to 3 paying in for each recipient. In the not so distant future the ratio will be 1 to 1. Perhaps then the afl-cio will realize the insolventcy of Social Security. To bad we’ve lost so much time and the problem continues to worsen. Democrats are protecting a program that cost far to much for government to administer. I only want government to do for me what I am not able to do for myself (infrastucture and military). Anything more than that is inefficient an ineffective. Democrats think they fix problems with programs by increasing revenues or investments (TAXES) for programs. In reality the programs perpetuate the very conditions the program is intented to eliminate. ~
So why does a millionaire like McCain draw a social security check. Clearly he does not need it. This may be what is wrong with the social security system. Those who really need the money don’t get it, while those that don’t, get more than they need.
One of the reasons social security is going broke is that our government has been borrowing against it for years without paying it back. Perhaps our government should stop funding this ridiculous war and start investing in our people’s futures. I have paid into social security all my life. I was hoping that just as this money would help someone else survive when they could no longer work, that those before me helped to pay for my support when I can no longer work. Well, that time has come, and my social security check isn’t even enough to pay for my groceries.
Unless, we as a nation put forth some real guarantees and protections for the old, sick and disabled to survive, we will be guilty of genocide.
If it is managed properly, the Social Security system does work, and works very well. The money paid into it belongs to the people, NOT the government. But everyone, must pay into it, not just the working poor and middle class. EVERYONE!
“Why does a millionare like McCain draw SSI?”
Because its a contract and a RIGHT, because he’s paid into it!
With that mentality, you might as well not save for your retirement, as if your funds do well, and you live 5% to 20% poorer every day of your life saving for the future, you’ll just be called a “millionaire” and lose your SSI benefits you were SUPPOSED to get. yeah, spend it all. Buy a new car every year, a boat, a jetski, a summer cabin…dont save a dime. You might be rich enough to retire someday and lose your benefits!
Maybe McCain paid into it (Social Security), maybe he didn’t. How do we know for sure. If he did pay into it, yes, it is his right to collect the benefits. I never said it wasn’t. My question, and following statement was, “Maybe this is what is wrong with the social security system”, MEANING, maybe when one does reach a certain level of wealth and solvency, they could chose not to receive benefits. The way it is now, I do not believe that is an option.
Your last paragraph really baffles me, because I am not sure what you are saying. Do you mean don’t save for retirement because you should be guaranteed an adequate social security when you do retire; or do you mean save for retirement so you can be rich enough to not have social security? Your statement “buy a new car every year, a boat, a jetski…don’t save a dime.” refers to who? Please explain yourself.
A HISTORY LESSON HERE: Social Security was originally set up to help people in their retirement when they were no longer able to work. These benefits were paid by the workers, initially, before they retired. After they retired, new workers continued to pay into the system to pay for those still working but were nearing retirement age. Social Security WAS NOT intended to be the sole source of income for anyone. It was intended to be a supplement, and as a result, was tremendously effective and CONTINUALLY SOLVENT; as a worker retired, he or she would not be able to earn the same income as when they were working. This was an obvious fact. But Social Security together with an adequate company pension plan, would enable a retiree to look forward to what we used to call “the golden years”, e.i. you worked hard all your life, paid your ‘dues’, so to speak, and could enjoy your ‘old age.’ Now here’s what went wrong. Little by little, slowly but SURELY, most companies today provide no pensions, so many people have nothing to supplement Social Security, NOTHING. Privatization was preached to corporations and businesses to encourage people to set up there own IRA’s, 401’s, etc. to save for their retirement. Here’s what happened. Older people who were nearing retirement age were not able to save nearly enough for when they did retire or became disabled. Social Security benefits were not and have never been, adequately adjusted for inflation. Those still working and have had a good savings in their IRAs etc, lost a lot of their savings because of the stock market. These “privatized” pension plans are basically set up as Mutual Funds tied to the stock market. It’s a game, where there have been many losers. Those who had no private pension plans (many small business never even provided for them, not to mention that many that did did not ‘match’ donations) were left with being encouraged to save. This did not work for two very important reasons: savings accounts paid so little interest, the money saved was deflating while it sat in the bank, and with the cost of just about everything going through the roof, not only could people not afford basic necessities, being able to save was out of the question. Those that put their savings in tangible goods, such as REAL ESTATE (!), lost out as well.
So, you have a large percentage of the population who are old, sick and disabled with little or no adequate means of survival. I will repeat myself here, ‘Unless we as a nation put forth some real guarantees and protections for the old, sick and disabled to survive, we will be guilty of genocide.’