FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Plot to Kill Social Security

by SHAMUS COOKE

In Washington each new day brings a fresh call to “reform entitlement programs” — Social Security, Medicare, etc., (in Congress, the word “reform” now means to eliminate, or drastically reduce). Tackling Social Security has been on the to-do list of the corporate elite for years, and they’re not waiting any longer. After years of promoting this cause, conservative think tanks have now garnered solid support from the political establishment as a whole, which includes the Republican and Democratic parties.

The newest liberal recruit to the destruction of Social Security is Thomas Friedman, the influential columnist for The New York Times, who wrote recently:

“The president needs to persuade the country to invest in the future and pay for the past… We have to pay for more new schools and infrastructure than ever, while accepting more entitlement cuts than ever [Social Security, Medicare, etc.] when public trust in government is lower than ever.” (February 20, 2010).

The nonchalance which Friedman calls for cutting Social Security is indicative of the climate in Washington, where the last remnants of liberalism have been suffocated under the heavy demands of profit-hungry corporations, especially financial institutions and big banks. For political hacks like Friedman — and there are thousands of them — the ONLY solution to curing the U.S. deficit is cutting social services in general, while specifically targeting Social Security and Medicare.

But President Obama revealed these assertions to be lies, when he recently announced, “fixing Social Security would be simple.” The Associated Press explains:

“The system is funded with a tax on earnings, up to $109,000 a year. Obama says lifting that cap to tax a larger share of income would be one way to extend the system of monthly payments for retirees. It also would be unpopular with some.” (February 19, 2010).

This idea is indeed very unpopular with the very rich, who enjoy the privilege of paying no Social Security tax after the $109,000 threshold. Obama let an unpopular truth out of the bag when he brought up this fact; but conveniently for him, many mainstream news outlets decided not to amplify the President’s voice.

Obama, however, is unlikely to promote this “radical” idea much further, since he’s already decided on a method to undermine Social Security. Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is a bi-partisan group that is set to attack Social Security in a way where, in the end, both political parties will be blamed, so that neither party is overburdened with guilt. The Republicans — having made their contempt for Obama more than known — are salivating at the chance to cooperate.

The Washington Post recently announced that Republican leaders have agreed to
Obama’s commission, while making no secret about the motive behind the grouping:

“…Obama’s commission may lack the power to force the parties to reach consensus on a plan that is almost certain to require deep cuts to the popular entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — as well as significant tax increases…Building bipartisan consensus for such a plan would be particularly difficult in the run-up to the fall elections…” (February 19, 2010).

Since the foregone conclusions of Obama’s panel will be so unpopular, the Washington Post explains that they will be announced after the fall elections, in December 2010.

There will be little room in Obama’s commission for his above-mentioned tax increase on the rich. The Republicans have already announced that they will be solidly focusing on reducing services for the working class, not taxing the wealthy.

What will the “reformed” Social Security look like? Again, the Conservative think tanks have an idea waiting in the wings: personal savings accounts. In the same way that 401(k)s killed the pension, Social Security is set to be privatized for the mighty benefit of Wall Street.

Just last week, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin announced a privatization plan that just happened to coincide with the creation of Obama’s commission. Michael Hiltzik of The Los Angles Times called Ryan’s plan “a roadmap for killing Social Security.” He writes:

“His [Ryan’s] privatization scheme would allow workers under 55 to place more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, with the ultimate goal of shifting most of that money into the stock market.” (February 17, 2010).

By creating individual accounts, Wall Street is bolstered while the public nature of Social Security is undermined, since Social Security is a “pay as you go” program: if workers under 55 decide to invest in Wall Street, and not to pay into the Social Security fund, older workers don’t receive benefits. Social Security is thus dismantled.

Only workers who have money to save — and are gullible enough to trust their money to Wall Street — will put money in their new Social Security accounts.

The killing of Social Security and Medicare cannot be a one-act drama. If both programs were instantly destroyed, the public outrage would be uncontrollable. Obama’s deficit commission, then, will likely work to undermine the program in a variety of ways so that a future Congress can finish the job.

Therefore, Obama’s commission may recommend a variety of tactics to strip the program: instituting benefit cuts, increasing the age in which benefits are received, and introducing a limited option for personal accounts. Also possible is the implementation of a tiny, ineffectual tax on the rich to give the illusion that everybody is making “sacrifices.”

Whatever methods are used to attack Social Security, they will surely erode the last vestiges of credibility from the two-party system. Most Republicans are aware that their cooperation on the elimination of Social Security and Medicare will destroy what’s left of their party, which is why they are in the midst of creating a new, more radically right-wing party — now a mere tea party.

But the above scenarios are not inevitable, as the corporate establishment would have you think. The only reason Social Security and Medicare were not attacked earlier was the fear of working class reaction. That fear must be reintroduced.

A coalition of unions, pensioners, AARP members, and other retiree organizations must unite to oppose any cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and social services. To begin, these groups could include their demands in a “jobs for all” march on Washington, which many unions have been calling on the labor movement to organize.

Other community and student groups would be drawn into such a struggle, as could the general public. In place of cuts to essential services, a tax on the wealthy and corporations must be demanded, alongside of an end to foreign wars, bank bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare. If such a coalition fails to materialize, the banks and corporations will continue to loot workers in this country unchallenged. The sooner the cut backs are organized against and smashed, the better.

SHAMUS COOKE is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).  He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail