People have been wondering why the “progressive” Earl Blumenauer would willingly participate in Matt Bai’s hatchet piece on Social Security in the New York Times. Bai says that Blumenauer “sides with the White House” in the belief that “Democrats need to do something now about the federal debt,” starting with “cherished entitlement programs.”
Blumenauer says that Social Security “can’t exist on make-believe money” and therefore “Democrats should remain open to changes in the benefit structure.”
Dean Baker responded to Blumenauer’s ridiculous claims, noting that “The ‘make-believe’ money is United States government bonds that were purchased with workers’ Social Security taxes. Unless Mr. Blumenauer expects a default on the government’s debt, there is nothing make believe about this asset.”
But thought I’d add some perspective on the man himself. Bottom line: I’ve had pieces of toilet paper dragging from my shoe that were more principled than Earl Blumenauer.
July 2007: Earl Blumenauer signs a letter saying he won’t vote for any more war funding that doesn’t have troop withdrawal provisions.
June 2009: Earl Blumenauer votes for war supplemental without troop withdrawal provisions — when his votes actually counts. 39 Democrats could have stopped it; only 32 voted “nay.”
July 2009: Earl Blumenauer is one of 60 members of Congress who sign a letter pledging to vote against any health care bill without a public option:
September 2009: Online public option supporters raise $433,000 for those members of Congress. Blumenauer received $3200 of that money.
October 31, 2009: Blumenauer steps forward and gratuitously smacks Alan Grayson when he said the GOP health care plan is to “die quickly.” Here he is concern trolling in the New York Times:
“You cringe,” said Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon and an unabashed liberal but also a buttoned-down gentleman. “We’re at risk of having a self-reinforcing corrosive process that drives reasonable people away.” He added: “It breaks my heart.”
January 2010: People who gave money to Blumenauer start calling his office and asking him if he’ll keep his word and vote against a bill without a public option. His office responds by asking them “if Jane Hamsher is taking money from Scott Brown.”
March 2010: People who gave Blumenauer money because of his public option pledge start calling and asking for him to give it back (in a poll, 90% of our readers thought he should do so, or at least donate it to Haitian relief). Blumenauer derides anyone who would even think of keeping the pledge he made, saying “People need to use their ‘inner wonk,’ not outsource analysis to idiot ‘shouting heads.’ Facts are clear.” He keeps all the money.
Basically, Earl Blumenauer is Lanny Davis in a bow tie. He’s an unprincipled hack who hides behind schtick, wagging his finger in exhortations to “civility” while shamelessly betraying every promise he makes.
This is not a departure for him.
Write Oregon media and let them know about Earl Blumenauer’s position on Social Security.
Update: According to Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, Blumenauer has been contacted and “he stands behind his statements in the story about ‘progressive price indexing.’ He believes that Social Security is going to be modified and refuses to take these stealth benefit cuts off the table. He thinks they’re important for negotiating a compromise, even though he acknowledges that conservatives are not negotiating in good faith.”







92 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Without disputing anything else in your article, the Social Security Trust Fund thing is bullshit. Blumenauer doesn’t believe that and never said it. Bai made it up.
http://fdl.me/bymmyi
Funny. When Bush threatened SS, “progressive” Dems were derisive of the suggestion that there was a crisis. I went to a Town Hall presentation by my own “progressive” Dem who told us that there was no crisis and that he and his like-minded Dem colleagues were going to put a stop to Bush’s machinations.
And they did.
But now that Obama threatens SS, our “progressive” Dems not only refuse to defend the system as they did before, not only do they not have the decency to run and hide, nope, now it’s “yes sir, full steam ahead”!
Fuck. Them. All.
There is not an honest person among them. Really looking forward to casting my vote in November. It won’t be going to either Dems or Reps.
Jane,
Is there any possibility O’s after the SS Funds to fund the Infrastructure Bank?
I was contacted, apparently based on my writing here, to run against Blumenauer. No idea how serious it was, because I wasn’t interested, and I don’t live in his district (though I have an office in his district).
Both David Wu and Earl Blumenauer need to go in my opinion. DeFazio is about the only decent federal politician we’ve got for being a pretty progressive state, and even he folds like a cheap suit on a regular basis. I know a lot of folks like Merkley, but he strikes me as a liberal Scott Brown (basically an unprincipled opportunist). If he lived in Oklahoma he’d be a conservative Republican, because that’d be what got him elected.
This quote specifically caught my eye when I read that NY Times piece: “Mr. Blumenauer argued that if Democrats really want to protect a vast array of federal programs from repeated Republican onslaughts, then they need to bring the costs of the programs in line with reality. Otherwise, he said, liberals only make it easier for conservative critics of social spending to undermine the entire premise of liberal government.”
Setting aside how completely false the statement is of the costs of programs being brought in line with reality, cutting any program is like adding blood to the water with the Republicans. The GOP sharks are not only going to smell the blood, but realize (as if it is not apparent already) the Democrats are weak cowards and the Republicans will just push for more because they know unprincipled hacks like Blumenauer will bend with the slightest push.
Blumenauer is the one that is needed to be brought “in line with reality” if he thinks by cutting programs the Republicans will stop their dismantling of social programs that help those in need and the elderly.
I’ve had pieces of toilet paper dragging from my shoe that were more principled than Earl Blumenauer.
Oh Jane. I love that kind of talk.
This says everything one needs to know about the current state of our country,
and how we got here.
thanks, called.
blumenauer sucks.
The real shame is the rot over here is making it’s way into Europe. I always thought Europe would prevent a slide back into the middle ages, but even that faint hope is disintegrating.
I finished my letter with the flourish: “Earl Blumenauer does not speak for me!”
There is no way that the federal deficit can be fixed by tweaking gutting Social Security, because by law Social Security is not part of the federal budget:
Social Security is running a surplus and that surplus is going into the Trust Funds, which are by law “off budget.” Full stop.
Also, the Executive order that created the Catfood Commission does not mention “Social Security” or “Medicare.”
Finally, in spite of indications to the contrary from the WSJ, the AARP is now telling Obama to keep his hands off of Social Security.
Ok, help me out. I’m confused.
Social Security is now in the black and is supposed to remain in the black until 2017. At that point, from what I’ve heard, it will go into the red. That means that the weekly or monthly withholdings taken out of our checks and paid to Social Security will not be enough to cover its expenses on a weekly or monthly basis. Ok, I get that.
So where does Social Security get the money to make up the difference? We are told that it will redeem the government bonds it holds for the money that the federal government has borrowed from the trust fund over the years. Fair enough. But where does the federal government get the money to redeem to bonds?
It seems to me that the only answer is from you and I. But I already paid into Social Security. Do I get to pay for it again?
Jane,
Considering the fact we keep getting betrayed by the so-called liberal wing of the Democratic party (health care, war funding, SS, etc) — and always after they’ve taken our money — when do you feel would be the opportune time to revisit the present day strategy for pushing progressive policies (i.e. fund raising for them based on their sure-to-be-broken promises)? And what other strategies would you recommend?
I know Jason Rosenbaum @ Seminal is bearish on championing Third Party candidates unless they are already established, well-oiled, political machines. Which more or less translates to “Don’t ever bail out on the Democratic Party irregardless of what they actually do. Do NOT hold them accountable at the ballot box.”
So what is the answer when it’s obviously policies, and policies alone, that we care about? Would you ever consider championing (fund raising) someone from the Green (or another Third Party), or do you feel — as Jason — it would just be a losing proposition in this two party system we are stuck with?
An idea: Would FDL be better served to champion a changing of the current electoral system to an Instant-Runoff Voting System in much the same way it is now championing the “Just Say Now” campaign? That would obviously allow us to vote for third party candidates without the side-effect of putting neo-cons back into office.
Why doesn’t FDL make Instant Runoff Voting a new central issue to focus time and energy on?
By the way, I loved your book: “Killer Instinct” Couldn’t put it down.
fyi -
Jon Walker has covered Instant Runoff Voting in several posts here at the Lake
Re mission of the Catfood Commission. It references ‘entitlement’ programs:
“In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.”
here’s one of the problems;
Please, if this commission is going to “tackle the hard questions” like Social Security, then please, please, please don’t call it a DEFICIT commission.
SS hasn’t added to the deficit. SS won’t add to the deficit. SS is forbidden from law to add to the deficit.
Why can’t we/they/everybody who ever brings up the catfood commission also include that 10 seconds of info EVERYTIME. Please.
Thanks for the AARP link:
There is no disclaimer regarding how the WSJ represented their views. There is no mention of the WSJ article. Would you really expect them to publicize their caving in?
Harsh – but earlier today I wrote the public editor on Bai’s putting his own – limited and wrong – reasoning into a piece on Blumenauer’s position. He needed to get a quote. FDL’s Scarecrow who is linked in Jane’s post correctly attributes the quote to Bai.
But Blumenauer has drunk the kool aid that immediate cuts to benefit payouts needs to be on the table – the only logic that supports such a position is the one that says the Trust Fund must never cash in the bonds it owns.
So I don’t think Jane is too far off when she says Blumenauer believes what Bai wrote.
Yes, I’ve been very disappointingly keeping my eyes over there too.
The talk is turning a lot like it is here. I wouldn’t give up just yet on the people taking that talk though without a fight, the way we Yankees roll up and do whatevah the authority tells us too.
It’s disappointing, but don’t give up on ‘em yet.
People have been wondering why the “progressive” Earl Blumenauer would willingly participate.
Not Progressive or Democrat… Earl Blumenauer = A$$ Hole – -
Social Security has Nothing to do with the federal debt, Nothing…!
ooooh, oooh, pick me! pick me !
following his m.o. to date, nope. there isn’t necessarily anything to be gained in these deals with the devil – other than their idea of the golden ring – keeping $$$ outta Repub coffers. that’s it. Grandma can suck it, we’re free n clear for 2012, woo hoo !
sorry, I’m sure there’s a smarter, kewler way to say that, but let’s keep it real – continuing Majority Power is their one and only goal
That’s pretty much how I see Merkley too–I remember well his statement, only partially and weakly denied, to a woman of Palestinian extract who had contributed to his campaign and was being given the money back because of a subsequent hard-line statement of support for Israel: “I don’t know if what I’m doing is right or wrong; I want to win.”
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/04/mideast_politics_put_merkley_i.html
When he faced a primary opponent who was more obviously and actively anti-war in 2003 than he was, he began saying that HE was the antiwar champ, and his opponent was “MIA” at the time. And (with the help of over $400,000 from Chuck Schumer and the DSCC) he spent the last month completely excoriating his opponent for being less than obsequious with regard to Obama and Clinton’s progressive credentials. The angle was that Novick (his opponent) was too vulgar and sharp-tongued about fellow Democrats, so how could he get along in the ultra-clubby Senate. But the obvious subtext was “speak no evil of a Democrat, and you can bet if I’m elected I’ll slap Joe Lieberman on the back when he enters the chamber.”
I have been very pleased, nonetheless, with Merkley’s repeated attempts to infuse the discourse with some progressive reality. Calling McConnell out from the floor last year was pretty damn ballsy for a freshman. And he votes the right way, which is to say he votes for the most progressive version of the available bills. But he seems perfectly willing to take whatever compromise shit sandwich he’s handed, vote for it and claim it was a good vote.
Blumenauer is far from a worthless MoC; he has been a leader in protecting Oregon wilderness and is a ceaseless promoter of alternative transportation in this country–his cmte positions have allowed him to turn that promotion into some reality. So he’s definitely been a net benefit to Congress and progressive principles, IMO. But he can weasel with the best of them, no doubt.
If you contribute money to these elected magicians, use your credit card. If the bastard has lied, and you haven’t paid your card’s bank yet, don’t pay that amount and let the bank investigate. That’s a feature of all credit card agreements you can employ. Further, some credit card agreements will refund your charges if the goods or services are faulty, broken, stolen, etc., within a certain time after the transaction. Request (demand) a refund from the credit card issuer under that feature. Be imaginative – use your third-party (as in a contract) power.
My comment or post would be far to large, so I have crafted a diary at the Seminal and titled, “A Chicano Crisis…”. Thus, take a gander and enjoy.
Jaango
It’s important to put such scoundrels in the spotlight as often as possible. Thanks for your contribution to this cause.
If the deficit is so important, why not put the defense budget on the table? Why not raise taxes on the rich?
This is class war, folks.
Earl backs choo-choo trains and bikes. He needs money for Light Rail and the developments that follow. He is disingenuous, imo. Light Rail here is about tax abatement for developers not about moving people, especially street cars.
Thank you folks. for doing this. This is exceptionally well targeted. Thank you.
Let’s get started here looking for someone to Primary Baryy already. It’s got to be obvious now that he’s NOT even a Dimocrat. This SSI crap and the CAT FOOd Commission is the straw that’s broken the Camel’s back. This guy is a GOPer in Sheeps clothing.
Ok, then two things: 1) Does the term “entitlement” really include pre-paid insurance programs? 2) Why wouldn’t the term “entitlement” include things like corporate welfare or tax benefits to the rich?
The Military can afford to have teams of fighter pilots like the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds flying all over spending tens of millions just on fuel for what? The country is falling apart, but no toy is too much for these people. Enough already.
Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled post is available: Peggy Noonan: Obama’s Failing Because “He Doesn’t Fit Any Categories”
Exactly! And LA Times’ business columnist Michael Hiltzik made this same point in an excellent June 23 column:
Let’s get in their face every time they call Social Security an “entitlement program.” It’s not!
Progressive Democrat is an oxymoron. The only question you need to ask is would a Blue Dog Democrat cut Social Security. And the answer is in a heartbeat.
But, it’s only “class war” when we fight back. So let’s fight!
It’s an economic term. One article on an Auburn page includes these categories:
All for it. First, people gotta stop voting for Dems. We could start a Firebagger Party, bring in the real left. Run candidates against the Dems. You know, turn the epithet on its head!
Thank you Earl for opening my eyes. I mistakenly thought you were a good guy, but now you have set me straight. I’d now vote for “an old yeller dog” than vote for you.
Wu, you are about the quietest guy in Congress. Cat got your tongue? You will be out too. Oregonians don’t like guys with spaghetti for backbones.
Both of you have brown noses.
Yeah,
I know, I’ve read posts on Instant Runoff Voting on FDL before. I just wonder if it might be a worthwhile ‘campaign’ for FDL to really focus on as a central issue.
In much the same way FDL did with Libby, health care, or even like the current push for legalizing Mary J — make Instant Runoff Voting a target issue, collect signatures, etc. Here’s one reason it could be a successful campaign:
The Left wouldn’t be alone in this fight. Ron Paul/Libertarians/Tea Partiers/etc — i.e. the ones who seem to be getting all the media attention these days — would LOVE this kind of system, as they would also benefit from it. Perhaps Jane could get Ron Paul in on this to mobilize his side for signatures, and to give this issue a voice.
ah, that’s actually a bunch of crap. Streetcar moves TRIPLE the amount of people they thought it would, and if it’s all about tax abatement why has our population grown strongly and our carbon footprint stayed the same? Hmmmmm….
Jane is much more advanced on that issue than I am, however I feel the only way to change it is to take the money out of elections. ALL OF IT! Support from actual voters—Period!
The politicians are not beholding to us regular people. They must do/perform for their corporate backers. We have a vote but it does not “speak” to the candidate.
Per Michael Kinsley writing in the 1/29/09 issue of Time:
I think we should try to take over the Democratic Party the way that conservatives have taken over the Republican Party, i.e., primary by primary. It took the conservatives thirty years to take the Republican Party back of the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford folks.
We must not allow SS to be framed as some 75 year old dream or like a lottery. The money future retirees put into it was just as real as if they had put it into a bank. The fact that banksters pissed it away on schemes like credit default swaps makes the money in your savings account no less an obligation, and the fact that Trojan horses like Obamarahma and Blumenauer want to tear up the IOUs to finance tax cuts to the rich to gain campaign contributions FROM the rich doesn’t make that money any less real or those owed any less morally superior.
Agreed, that if there was no money in elections you could achieve the same ends. I just don’t see that ever happening. That involves using tax money to fund elections — so you can almost hear how Fox News would frame that issue, and would use it flatten the timid liberals from seriously pursuing it.
But Instant Runoff Voting could also achieve similar ends, but in a roundabout way. It actually is a better system of democracy, as the will of the people is closer to being achieved in the results than what we have today — where winner takes all. Here’s a post I wrote on it describing what could be achieved by it.
And the moneyed interests — just as they wouldn’t let a public option happen — would NEVER allow their right to fund campaigns disappear. That would be one tough battle to fight, and I could see it framed in ways by the right (including Libertarians who want lesser role of government) as a call for more government taxes, bigger government role.
I remember when the old John McCain (McCain/Feingold) took up that issue. Well, he learned his political lesson on that, and you’ll never hear him make a call against moneyed interest contributions again.
I stand by what I said. You are cherry picking the data. But this isn’t the place to debate it since it’s about SS. Blumenauer’s position in SS cuts would impact the funding available (if Wall Street doesn’t get it first!).
I am not against mass transit, and have taken positions contrary to many who see an all or nothing approach to Light Rail in Portland. But with respect to the intent of LR, moving people for the least cost is down the line in assessing the value of such endeavors.
Then there is the water issue, which is getting no traction from EB.
I never liked this guy. Wasn’t he the one who wrote in the provision in the Health Care Law about Medicare paying for end-of-life counseling? I know that a lot of people were in favor of that provision (which I don’t know if it is still in the law), but the motive for putting it in was to save money. I never understood why all the so-called liberals were such big fans of this. I would have thought it would be a liberal stance to be skeptical of a provision if it does not zealously safeguard the rights of older people and those with terminal illnesses. I don’t mean to rehash old arguments and I truly respect the position of those who are in favor of this provision but my suspicion is that many on the Democratic side just supported because it was favored by Democrats.
Hopefully people won’t do the same thing with SS cuts. That is an issue that is more clear cut, so hopefully Democrats won’t fall in line. And I truly despise the argument that this must be done for “our grandchildren”. That is such BS. Let the rich pay their fair share of taxes and let their rich grandchildren pay an inheritance tax and our grandchildren will be better off.
Agreed! Ask any person on the street or at the mall this question:
Do you want your social security or do you want to give billionaires a break on their stock earnings?
It’s that simple. It has nothing to do with business, small business, or any other GOPterra spill the repukes push.
We could even ask: Do you want your social security or do you want the military to keep redefining their missions?
LOL! J. McPain! Yeah, I remember that well. I agree the system may work. I’m just wary of it getting out of hand with voting machines, etc. I vote, I use those damn Die-Bold-lie machines. I don’t trust them–never will.
Unfortunately far too many would answer, “Give it to the billionaires.” It’s a toxic variation on Stockholm Syndrome.
Jane, you’re a goddess.
Me, too!
Let’s try to make everyone happy, and give everyone what they want:
In addition to the employee mandated contribution (FICA), and in addition to the employer’s matching mandated contribution, have the federal government contribute the same portion. Not necessarily during each payroll period; the fed portion can be deferred.
Then, the beneficiary would have a 33.3% increase in benefits…
The ‘retirement’ age can be increased for ‘full’ benefits – retirees can then afford to feed their cats caviar.
The ‘retirement’ age can be lowered (even to 50) for decreased benefits…
But it would take an act of Congress.
Hahahahaha….
Sounds like we have one pretty good nominee for Democracy for America’s “Progressive Villains“.
pull these weeds out
x2
Just got off the phone with Blumenauer’s office. Usual back tracks. Sent a letter to some of the Oregon media.
e-mail from MoveOn:
Dear MoveOn member,
Rep. Earl Blumenauer is generally a strong progressive. But on Social Security, he’s way off track.
In an article in Wednesday’s New York Times, Rep. Blumenauer endorsed “progressive price indexing”1—which would mean benefit cuts for some retirees—as a way to strengthen Social Security’s financing.
Supporters of this plan argue that it would affect only wealthy retirees. But what they don’t tell you is that the only way price indexing would deliver significant savings is by cutting deeply into middle class retirees’ benefits.2
With conservatives gearing up this year to try to cut Social Security, we need progressives to lead the fight against cuts—not help them with their plan.
Rep. Blumenauer needs to hear from his constituents that benefit cuts are unpopular and unacceptable. Can you call his office in Portland and tell him that you stand with the 85% of Americans who oppose cutting benefits3 and that you’re disappointed about his position?
All this transparency has it’s drawbacks. There’s more garbage than I ever wanted to see, but now I know what to set out on the side of the road and what to keep for now. Whether it’s Blumenauer or the health care ‘debate’, the Koch Brothers or Target/Best Buy, Ben Nelson, Lieberman, ‘Dick’ Armey and the ‘grassroots’, Citizens United, or simply betrayal by oration, garbage identified is identified as garbage. That’s a beginning. Thanks, Jane for all that you do for the rest of us.
Alan Alda can play him in the movie version.
Hey Earl. You better come here. We need to talk.
I don’t give a shit how you get get to work, or how many bike paths you had built in Multinomah Co.
You’re from People Republic of Portland.
You don’t shut your mouth about Social Security quick, we’ll get you opposition in every primary until we beat you.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am personally going to hold Democrats accountable at the ballot box. I’ve switched my affiliation to Independent, and it’s going to be a cold day in hell before I vote for another Democrat. If there are no good third-party candidates on the ballot, I’ll write someone in.
Good on Ya! I am there with ya.
About pretend Democrats….those of you in washington state need to ask Senator Patty Murray why did she vote against the drug re-importation bill put forth by Senator Dorgan ?
She is working for Big Pharma she ain’t working for ordinary Americans…
Sadly, although he’s not my rep (that would be Kurt Schrader, 5th dist, the most moderate of the Oregon Dems), I’m ashamed of Blum’s stand on SS. He’s usually fairly progressive. The benefit equation is not the real issue. The issue is removing the income cap. If that were done, there never would be a problem w/SS. As long as SS income is capped at $102+K, the wealthy just don’t pay their share in taxes (wow, what’s new? LOL). ANY discussion of benefit reductions w/o a discussion of raising or eliminating the income cap is just totally bogus, and a disservice to those whose need of SS, esp in these times, is important.
Ha ha, that’s a great Kinsley piece. The Federal Reserve is counting household wealth, but they’re missing our most valuable public asset, our human capital. Let’s see, the EPA and OMB have calculated the statistical value of a human life at $7 million and the Census will come back this year a count of at least 310 million US residents.
Now either Census Bureau doesn’t know to count and the EPA dramatically overvalues human life (and thus should cut back on environmental protection) or the economic value of our human capital is no less than $2.170 quadrillion. Of course, once we net out the $13 trillion public debt, we’re down to $2.157 quadrillion. But don’t forget, since our population grows by about 1% a year, our national net worth will grow another $21 trillion or so this year alone.
No, he’s not.
You cannot make up lost trillion dollar votes on social security with a few $5 million bike paths here, and few $10 million old growth forest set-asides there. Do the math.
Ah, yes, Earl The Biker Blumenauer.
While Speaker Pelosi and Earl Blumenauer were sharing sweet nothings together August 5th, when she was raising campaign funds for him in Portland, perhaps they also strategized about how to get Obama’s – and thus, of course, Pelosi’s, since Party-before-duty Congressional Democrats and Republicans obviously, to their enormous discredit, aren’t even semi-independent legislators anymore – Social Security Bond-defaulting agenda through Congress without fingerprints this fall.
Blumenauer, of course, has already demonstrated his sycophantic adoration of Speaker Pelosi and her wily ways. Here’s Representative Blumenauer gushing over Pelosi’s backroom dealmaking the night that Stupak/Pitts won the staring contest with Pelosi and the White House, just before the House vote on the health care legislation, even as the House Rules Committee charade of pretending to listen to the amendment requests of their House colleagues continued into the wee hours of the morning, until Pelosi’s Deal finally emerged for rubberstamping:
Does Representative Blumenauer’s (pre-fundraising) Ode to the Speaker (entitled “Another Reason We Will Win!”), from last November, sound like it was written by someone with the desire or fortitude to cross the will of Speaker Pelosi in any way?
As I’ve noted before, the same night that Rep. Blumenauer was at home, fielding a private phone call from Speaker Pelosi and doubtless agreeing to do her bidding on final passage, despite the Stupak/Pitts amendment, Rep. Blumenauer’s Oregon counterpart Greg Walden was publicly fighting before the House Rules Committee to restore his committee-passed amendments to the health reform legislation, on behalf of rural visiting nurses (in short, on behalf of Walden’s Oregon constituents) – to no avail, because of Speaker Pelosi’s iron grip on the Rules Committee, and because of her willing, obedient implementation of private orders issued by the White House:
In his weak-kneed clarification today of his sentiments in the Bai article, Blumenauer now states:
In other words, Oregon’s Earl Blumenauer – a “Democrat” first, last and always (and, by definition, if the current President or Speaker Pelosi asks it, it’s “Democratic” for his purposes, end of discussion) – will fiercely oppose anything a “Republican” suggests doing about Social Security (while bad-mouthing it as “privatization” or “weakening”), but will warmly embrace anything that Speaker Pelosi and President Obama want to do to Social Security even if the outcomes of their policies effectively mirror the Republican proposals – in the loving, power-serving name (“Platform” be damned) of slavish Party loyalty.
The money from social security bonds in the trust fund was used by Reagan and Greenspan to give the rich tax cuts and to fund wars. They used it as a slush fund so they could claim they were reducing the deficit, since Social Security is not part of the federal budget. Put the tax cuts back to pre Reagan levels and end some wars looks like a good solution to me.
wikipedia has a good page on the trust fund.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
Why can’t they just create the money? They don’t have to finance it with bonds at all. They can just mark-up people’s accounts.
The inflationary pressures should be nil.
Once they start cutting, it will always be their “go-to” fund, until it’s gone.
They’ve stolen everything else and we haven’t taken action.
People have such short term memory, they can’t even tote up what has been stolen from US over the last 10 years and are convinced that “someone is getting something for nothing”. They think their FICA taxes will end. HA!
Now they’ve got the right convinced it’s a “Ponzi Scheme” and they’ve had younger people propagandized for years that they will never see a cent of their FICA returned, so Obama is just making sure all the propaganda and false accounting comes true.
Amazing how I can watch the propaganda thru the years and see how they use it when the time is ripe.
And I really don’t think there’s anything we can do about it, unless we all go to Washington
PS: it’s to stop giving $$ to congresscritters BEFORE they deliver. They’re all thieves
That would be the same as doing nothing, and that’s fine with me. Remember Social Security is a seperate entity than the federal government, and with the bonds is solvent until 2037 if nothing is done. What Reagan and Greenspan engineered is a theft of people’s contributions to Social Security for the last 25 years, under cover of ‘preparing for the baby boomers’. A theft Obama, The Catfood Commission, and the worthless dems in congress are trying right now to close the deal.
Every single one of them knows that’s what they’re doing, Grayson, Pelosi, Woolsey, Obama, and this little creep Blumenauer, all of them. Never doubt it.
Ok, I get all that. But in the end you seem to agree with me. The money is gone. Who spent it? I don’t know. For now, I don’t care. All I care about is that the money in the trust fund is gone. The trust fund money, the Social Security surplus, was replaced with government bonds. That is my understanding.
But when Social Security needs those bonds for make up for shortfalls, as they will, from what I understand, in 2017 and beyond, where does the money come from to redeem the bonds?
If we say it comes from the federal government, then that sound to me like you and I get to pay for it because you and I fund the federal government by the taxes we pay. But if it is the federal government that has to redeem the bonds, and you and I fund the federal government, then that means that you and I get to pay for Social Security twice. We already paid the first time when we got our paycheck from our employer. If the federal government redeems the bonds held in the Social Security Trust fund, then I think we get to pay for Social Security again. Am I wrong or do I have this right?
If you want to sell me some magical monetary theory, I’m not interested, thanks.
reply to blackdog @ 73
I don’t agree with you at all. You’re conflating Social Security with the deficit, they are separate.
The people who need to pay for the bonds are the people who got the tax cuts, and the corporations that got rich off the wars. The money in the trust fund is not ‘gone’, they’re bonds. These bonds are the same thing as China or Saudi Arabia buying US bonds. The government pays them back, why not Americans?
They’re trying here to burn us on their debt to us, that is all.
Read the wikipedia article.
Let us get that money from all of those fat cats that Mr. Reagan awarded huge tax cuts to. Reagan raised the SSI deduction and then gave the money back to those fat cats.
So where is Jane’s correction? I can’t believe she bought that BS characterization of Blumenhauer in the NYTimes.
The SS bond obligations will be met. If the government is defaulting on its bonds then we are all already so screwed that your horde of gold and ammunition stuffed into your off the grid cave in Montana won’t help you either.
At that point there will also not be fat cats, or a financial system.
It is apparent that many of you seem have such ideological purity that the collapse of the global economy might seem a good thing to you, but as it would mean the deaths of millions I’ll take incremental-ism over end-times ism.
Calm down. The sky is not falling. All that needs to occur is for the rich and the corporations to pay their share, and the bankers prevented from committing their frauds.
Simple.
There’s nothing magical about it. It’s just how it works, and the only plausible concern would be some inflationary pressures, but consider the market has already absorbed the money spent pre-maturely, and most of it has been annihilated in financial crises and wars. I mean if $14 Trillion in backstops in a few days can’t get inflation moving, then the meager sums of making good on SS disbursements that are totally predictable sure as hell aren’t going to do anything.
Social security is a separate program from the rest of government expenditures, and is solvent. It’s the last place frankenstein theories should be practiced, particularly since the solution to the way off problems (if they even occur) is so obvious, eliminate the cap on wages.
I’m just pointing out that there’s no conceivable way, in a fiscal sense, that the government can’t make good on its liabilities even if it weren’t solvent according to the balance sheet.
The only way it could default on the benefits would be purely political, not fiscal. There’s a difference, and it’s important for people to understand.
Lastly, it’s not a “frankenstein theory.” Is it a frankenstein theory to say that water is wet? No. That’s just how it is. As is the case with money creation.
Believe what you like, however bringing these theories into a discussion of Social Security clouds the real issues. It’s a distraction and serves no purpose but to push the theory, which has nothing to do with Social Security.
Ok, we agree that there is no “money” in the Social Security Trust fund. We also agree that what is in the Trust fund is an “investment” in federal government bonds. The Wikipedia article you reference says the same thing in the 3rd paragraph.
You said, “The people who need to pay for the bonds are the people who got the tax cuts…” You may be morally correct, but you and I both know that the government taxes don’t work that way; they act with a broad broom and sweep us all into the net of paying taxes. You and I fund the federal government, and when the government has to redeem bonds, it gets the money from you and me.
Let’s assume, and it is a safe assumption (because it has never happened), that the US will not default on its debt obligations. Let’s also agree that a bond is a “debt obligation,” because that is exactly what it is. It pays interest for the money borrowed and has a maturity date.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Social Security Trust fund goes from the black to the red in 2017. At that point, because their outlays will exceed the money being taken in, they will need to redeem the government bonds.
At that point the Social Security Administration will start to redeem the bonds in their investment portfolio. The federal government, who issued the bonds, will be on the hook to redeem them.
I think this is all pretty straightforward stuff. But here is the rub. I already paid for social security with the deductions from my paycheck. I find it a little unfair that I have to pay for it again when Social Security redeems the bonds from the federal government, since you and I fund the government with our taxes. I find it had enough to make ends meet without having to pay for something twice.
You see, here is what I suspect: there was a pot of gold in the Social Security Trust fund. The temptation to get their hands on the cash was too much. And I’ll bet that it is both republicans and democrats that did the spending.
Here is something else I suspect: Most people do not understand that when Social Security goes from the black to the red that Social Security will have to redeem the government bonds it owns. It is at that point that Americans are going to wake up and understand that they get to pay for Social Security twice, once with their payroll deductions, and a second time with their income taxes. And I suspect they will be pissed.
Here is a question: when did the federal government start taking the money out of the Social Security Trust fund? Under Reagan? Or Carter? Or maybe Johnson? When did they start raiding it to spend on their dear projects?
“Ok, we agree that there is no “money” in the Social Security Trust fund. We also agree that what is in the Trust fund is an “investment” in federal government bonds. The Wikipedia article you reference says the same thing in the 3rd paragraph. ”
No, we do not. In our system, money is debt. Debt is how money comes into being.
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/
“You said, “The people who need to pay for the bonds are the people who got the tax cuts…” You may be morally correct, but you and I both know that the government taxes don’t work that way; they act with a broad broom and sweep us all into the net of paying taxes. You and I fund the federal government, and when the government has to redeem bonds, it gets the money from you and me.”
Nonsense. I am speaking specifically of the people who got tax cuts from Reagan. If that’s you or me, fine. You don’t like it, cry me a river. Or cut the Pentagon’s budget. Or close loopholes that allow corporations to base themselves overseas, and pay no taxes.
“I think this is all pretty straightforward stuff. But here is the rub. I already paid for social security with the deductions from my paycheck. I find it a little unfair that I have to pay for it again when Social Security redeems the bonds from the federal government, since you and I fund the government with our taxes. I find it had enough to make ends meet without having to pay for something twice. ”
See above. How do you feel about the Pentagon getting more than half of ALL federal government discretionary spending, every year? Year after year.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×6823199
“You see, here is what I suspect: there was a pot of gold in the Social Security Trust fund. The temptation to get their hands on the cash was too much. And I’ll bet that it is both republicans and democrats that did the spending.”
No doubt, but Reagan and Greenspan hatched the plot.
“Here is something else I suspect: Most people do not understand that when Social Security goes from the black to the red that Social Security will have to redeem the government bonds it owns. It is at that point that Americans are going to wake up and understand that they get to pay for Social Security twice, once with their payroll deductions, and a second time with their income taxes. And I suspect they will be pissed. ”
That must be why you keep repeating the the misconception, huh?
“Here is a question: when did the federal government start taking the money out of the Social Security Trust fund? Under Reagan? Or Carter? Or maybe Johnson? When did they start raiding it to spend on their dear projects?”
It was Reagan.
First, let me thank you for pointing out that it was Reagan that first raided the trust fund. I was unaware of that.
But I don’t think that goes far enough. While it may have happened first under Reagan, Congress has oversite. All revenue bills originate in the House. The President doesn’t write the budget nor does he enact it; that is done in Congress. So, blame Reagan. And blame Congress. Republicans and Democrats. Blame Reagan, Bush (1) and Clinton. Blame Bush (2) and blame Obama, because it is still going on.
Below is an article by Paul Craig Roberts. Frankly, I am not sure what to make of Mr. Roberts. But I do note that he was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. And he is not friendly to Mr. Reagan, nor to Wall Street, nor to any of them. So, there may be some truth here. If anything, he was in a position to know what was going on, then and now.
Blackdog you are being misleading and you know it.
Even if Social Security pay outs exceed exceed collections in 2017, the Social Security trust fund still grows because of the tens of millions of dollars that accrue each year in interest payments on the bonds that the trust fund holds. The trust fund will continue to grow, albeit more slowly.
Bonds won’t have to be cashed in and it will not add to the deficit.
From Wikipedia:
“…the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds.”
Why don’t you just acknowledge this, Blackdog.
The truth is as it is.
From the August 5th Social Security Trustees report:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee10-pr.htm
reply to blackdog @ 85
Let me thank you for that article, I hadn’t seen it!
“But I don’t think that goes far enough. While it may have happened first under Reagan, Congress has oversite. All revenue bills originate in the House. The President doesn’t write the budget nor does he enact it; that is done in Congress. So, blame Reagan. And blame Congress. Republicans and Democrats. Blame Reagan, Bush (1) and Clinton. Blame Bush (2) and blame Obama, because it is still going on. ”
No argument here. They were/are all complicit, and Obama, a ‘dem’ president, and this dem majority congress are right now trying to close the deal and complete the theft.
Time for us to clean house, end the governments largess to the pentagon, bankers, and the very richest Americans, and make sure it honors it’s agreements with all of us.
They’re all dirty, rep and dem, unless they stop this ripoff.
Well put. The only solution I see is to take away their power. Right now they enjoy martini lunches with their lobbyist friends. You and I, by the way, are not invited to the lunch.
They are self-important people because they control vast sums of power and money. So, let’s take away their power and access to vast sums of money.
Or, do you have another solution?
Steve, first, hello.
Let me begin by saying, no, I don’t know I am being misleading. I am asking a question. So, instead of attributing bad motives to me, let’s have conversation, see if we can get a few facts on the table, and see if we can find a solution. That is all I am trying to do.
Steve, I do not believe everything I read on Wikipedia.
You said, “Even if Social Security pay outs exceed exceed collections in 2017, the Social Security trust fund still grows because of the tens of millions of dollars that accrue each year in interest payments on the bonds that the trust fund holds. The trust fund will continue to grow, albeit more slowly.”
I remember, oh, it was about the fall of 2008, when it occurred to the banks, and those holding the derivative paper on mortgage backed securities, that the accounting method you describe does not work. You see, you assume that the interest payments will accrue, just as the bank, et al., assumed that the mortgages would continue to get paid. But I think we can agree that paper and paper and promises are promises, but money in the hand is a whole lot more valuable. You see, today there are still hundreds of banks and hedge funds and others holding the paper of the mortgage backed securities. On paper they are filthy rich. On paper. But they know, and you and I know, that they ain’t going to get paid. But the interest accrues.
But let’s take your 2025 number. Interest accrues to 2025. So what? It is paper interest. What happens if the government cannot afford to pay the interest? What happens if the government cannot afford to redeem the bonds?
That is one of the concerns I raising. We agree, do we not, that in the event social security runs a shortfall, in 2017, 2025, whatever, it is going to have to redeem the government bonds it has invested in? It will have to go to the government and say, “look, I got this bond, I want to redeem it because I need the cash to pay off our obligations.” But the government, this year, is already running a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Where is the government going to get the money to redeem the bond? Borrow more? How much more before people lose faith that the government will default on its debt? Raise taxes? People are already having a problem making ends meet; we want to take more money out of their pockets? Tax only the rich? Fine, take all their money, it will still not be enough to pay for the shortfalls social security is headed for.
You said, “Bonds won’t have to be cashed in and it will not add to the deficit.” Well, we simply disagree. Reading both conservative and liberal economists they both agree on one thing: the day is fast approaching where social security is going to go from the black to the red because the money being paid into it from payroll deductions will not cover ongoing expenses. On that day, the bonds will have to be redeemed to make up the shortfall. And when the bonds are redeemed, by the federal government that issued them, that will add to the deficit, unless the federal government decides to raise taxes to pay for the redemption. Sorry, but I just don’t see a way around that. If you do, let me know.
Same here.