The 60-Year Plan to Kill Social Security

I know this has already made the rounds through the blogosphere, but I was in my semi-hiatus at the time so I’m just now getting around to addressing it. In case you haven’t read it yet, take a moment to read this memo written by Karl Rove’s deputy about strategies for Social Security “reform”. Hidden in the memo is this much-quoted paragraph that says volumes about the true motivations of the SS “reformers” :

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win — and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals.

The intent here should be obvious, but humor me while I parse this a bit.

Notice the choice of words there, especially the reference to “the Social Security battle”. By their own admission, this is part of “the” battle that Republicans have been fighting for a while now. Has “the” battle over Social Security always been about giving people the option of investing a small percentage of their payroll taxes into private accounts? If not, then why aren’t the “reformers” being more honest about their true goals?

Even more telling is the fact that this is a battle that’s they’ve wanted to win for at least “six decades”, which begs this question : What was the nature of the Social Security battle sixty years ago? Is anyone dumb enough to think that FDR’s political opponents were fighting to strengthen Social Security? Here’s a view of the Social Security battle from one of FDR’s earliest fireside chats :

I have pointed out to the Congress that we are seeking to find the way once more to well-known, long-established but to some degree forgotten ideals and values. We seek the security of the men, women and children of the Nation.
[. . .]
And, finally, the third principle is to use the agencies of government to assist in the establishment of means to provide sound and adequate protection against the vicissitudes of modern life — in other words, social insurance.

Later in the year I hope to talk with you more fully about these plans. A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it ” Fascism”, sometimes “Communism”, sometimes “Regimentation”, sometimes “Socialism”. But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.

Which takes us back to the ultimate goal of “reforming” Social Security as summed up by the memo : “to move away from dependency on government”.

But in Roosevelt’s own words, the whole point of Social Security is to “use the agencies of government” to provide a social safety net. If you take the strenght and stability of the American govenrment out of the equation, then you’re undermining the very basis of the program itself. As many others have pointed out, the problem isn’t that Social Security faces a possible shortfall, but that SS is a living example of a liberal government social program that works relatively well. That’s why it’s at the top of the Republican hit list.

Keep this in mind whenever you hear the word “reform” get thrown around. This isn’t about fixing or strengthening anything. It’s about destroying the foundations of Social Security because of a simpleminded aversion to government social programs. Like I said before, this isn’t conservatism, it’s anarchism.


posted by greg on January 12, 2005 @ 6:10 pm

12 comments

  1. i know it seems obvious, but i hadn’t even thought of it that way…

    until now, i just thought of this “battle” for “reform” as yet another way for “them” to put more money into the hands of big corporations.

    but what you say makes perfect sense- it is their outright hatred/fear of socializm, in any form, that is their main motivation. and i just can’t understand why they hate/fear socializm so much. what is wrong with wanting a government that takes care of it’s citizens?

    i just don’t know how to feel about anything this country stands for anymore. just one thing after another, it’s all adding up to make me feel less and less patriotic about the states. fuck… i really am living in the wrong country…

    Comment by tom — January 12, 2005 @ 6:30 pm

  2. and yes, i know how to spell s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m. but the spam blocker apparently won’t let the letters “c” “i” “a” “l” “i” and “s” be used together.

    Comment by tom — January 12, 2005 @ 6:32 pm

  3. Good post. Whether they succeed in their wuest to destroy social security depends entirely on whether people like us can get the message out to the general public.

    Comment by James — January 12, 2005 @ 11:28 pm

  4. “We had to destroy Social Security in order to ruin it.”

    Comment by Kip W — January 13, 2005 @ 3:37 am

  5. The most disturbing part of Farenheit 911 was the seminar which assisted companies in tapping the bottomless well of cash which is the US government. I believe the republican agenda is simple; lower (or eliminate) taxes for rich people and corporations, privatize as much of government as possible, ensure control and obedience of the masses by Christianizing the country (Taliban-light). They want individuals to move away from dependence on the government so they can move toward it.

    Comment by Becky — January 13, 2005 @ 6:24 am

  6. I was gonna post something on Soc. Sec. on my blog, but I think I’ll just link to yours instead. You’ve summed it up nicely.

    Comment by Dave — January 13, 2005 @ 9:55 am

  7. Kakistocracy: govenment by the worst possible people.

    (from today’s Quad City Times)

    Comment by kamaachanda — January 13, 2005 @ 1:56 pm

  8. GETTING MY PET GOAT
    Questions and Answers About Social Security and Retirement Planning
    GAO Publication 256-A

    Foreword By General Milton Steemer,
    Inspector-General Of The Department Of Homeland Financial Security

    Dear Fellow Americans: Despite the Emergency, and the losses our nation has been asked to bear, our society is still productive and vital. Our workforce is committed to the goals of Freedom at home and across the world. America’s employed millions have sacrificed for a greater good, and with god’s help, success which we will ultimately claim can be shared with grateful peoples around the globe. Even in the humblest occupations, all of us will share in that day of victory.

    However, each of us must plan for a time when we are no longer able to meet the fierce demands of competition in a global marketplace. And that’s where sound financial planning, smart choices, may help you to enjoy your Golden Years.

    Many people are frightened of the future, and unsure if the Revised Social Security system will adequately provide for their retirement. Critics used to say those revisions were unnecessary; that other countries in Europe used better retirement systems. To them, I say: This is the United States of America, not someplace where communist-era fiscal policy has meant disaster and poverty for its seniors. God has blessed our great nation with much; it’s leaders are wise. We would never make decisions which would harm you. As we trust in you, have faith in the higher power guiding this great land.

    This publication will echo many of your basic questions about the revised Social Security system, and may answer them in a straightforward manner. You’ll find that, after reading this pamphlet, the few critics of this landmark program may have been misguided — and that your retirement future may be brighter than a few “sourpusses” would have us believe.

    May god bless you, and continue to bless America. Sincerely, Gen. Milton Steemer, USA (Ret.)

    __________________________________________

    Q. My name is Ted; I’m 25 years old and live in Wisconsin. Under the old Social Security program, what could I have expected to receive in retirement benefits?

    A. Unless changes were made, by the time you reached age 63 in 2042, benefits for all retirees would have been cut by 27 percent, and would have continued to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2079 (which will be almost common by then), your scheduled benefits would have been reduced by 33 percent from 2005 levels.

    Ted, if you like eating cat food, this would have been the plan for you! Fortunately, America’s leadership cared about its seniors, and wisely turned low-rising benefits into the possibility of exciting financial rewards for educated risk-takers!

    Q. My name is Laurie; I live in Virginia, am 60, and wanted to retire in two years. I have my retirement account with Merril-Lynch-Amoco. It hasn’t performed as well as a friends’ account with MitsuiCitigroup. It looks like I will have to work another five years just to get to where I am today, and if I adjust for inflation I may have to really adjust my standard of living when I retire.

    A. Laurie, you’re part of a responsible, hard-working culture. We’re not children — we all know things sometimes don’t turn out as we hoped. It’s life. You know you won’t starve, and in this increasingly troubled world, that’s truly one of god’s blessings.

    You have to retire with what you have, not with what you want — if wishes were horses, eh Laurie? But we suggest meeting with your financial planner, to discuss your concerns. And, who knows? If he picks the right set of winners in the NASDAQ, it could be caviar wishes and champagne dreams!

    Q. My name is Jamel; I live in Detroit, Michigan. I worry about my mom. She lost most of her retirement when her brokerage company went bankrupt after the scandal. The government insurance only paid for 30%. She worked as a cleaning lady for forty years to save for going home to live in Georgia. What can she do?

    A. Jamel, our nation’s seniors who find themselves in awkward circumstances do have options, and your government has been there to provide financial assistance to faith-based organizations, such as the PTL Senior Outreach and House Of Victory group homes. All are maintained under Federal guidelines for senior assisted living (see GAO Pub. 519, “What To Do When Mom Must Go”), and while these homes are exempt from Federal or state regulation, they are held to the highest publicly-understood standards of hygene and nutrition. You mother will be in the lord’s tender mercy, Jamel. It’s part of the Plan we all must follow!

    Q. My name is Bill; I live in California and am 50. I own a small strip-mining corporation with business in Central America, and my annual, after-tax income is over $700K. My wife has a private trust income, and each of us have annuities. We planned to retire before we were 55, and thanks to well-timed real estate sales before the pop of the ‘06 bubble, we invested in well-diversified accounts that realized excellent returns. What will the government do for average retirees like ourselves?

    A. Bill, our government owes you a great debt of thanks. By operating your own business, you showed yourself to be a contributor to America’s greatness, and a good steward of the land. Thanks to Schedule E of the Social Security revisions, for each dollar in gross profit your company reports, the government will deposit a dollar in a retirement fund or individual bank account of your choice. It’s a way of saying “thank you, Bill!” for your years of hard work — and your outward success mirrors the esteem in which you’re held by the lord, Bill!

    Q. My name is Rose. I am fifty-nine and live in New York City. I chose the one-time option in 2006, and kept my retirement plan under the old system, and didn’t privatize. Now I am told my benefits will be only a little more than half what I expected because of government debt. What happened? What will I do?

    A. That’s an excellent question, Rose; what will you do? Since the Emergency, our nation has taken on additional sacrifices to weather this unpleasant little patch. Our government has faith in the good news which lies ahead for each of us.

    We don’t want to be an “I-told-you-so”, but if you had privatized your account, your annual retirement amount would only have decreased slightly, by 34%, ratherthan the 50% you’re seeing now. Our leaders are wise, Rose, and when they speak — we all should listen.

    See the reply to Jamel’s question above about faith-based assisted living centers for seniors. And god bless you, Rose.

    Comment by Tom S — January 13, 2005 @ 2:04 pm

  9. We need our clever quips ready to counter their lies — counter-meme’s, I guess we could call them. How about, The Republicans want to reform Social Security the way a tsunami reforms the Asian coastline.

    Comment by Roddy McCorley — January 13, 2005 @ 2:17 pm

  10. One can only hope that with the “moral majority” showing themselves to be what they really are (and do we need to go into that? It could be a VERY long post if we did) people will take back their damn mandate. It seems that the rethugs are going to be a little to busy butchering themselves to hack up social security in the short term, and if we all just sit back and watch a bit longer maybe they’ll make enough rope that we don’t have to worry about this brand of rethugs again. In the meantime we can’t shut up and we can’t stop watching. Cause that’s when chimps get elected.

    Comment by Amy — January 13, 2005 @ 3:21 pm

  11. Amy, there is no mandate. These people are hoors.

    HOORS ! HOORS! HOOOOOORS!!!

    I think we knew that. I just really like posting it.

    Comment by Tom S — January 13, 2005 @ 4:33 pm

  12. Social security in its original form could survive.
    Hubert Humphry and his liberal friends have expanded the list of those qualified to receive social security until social security failed.
    Hillary and her friends have made a welfare system from a retirement system.
    Restore social security to the retirement program that it was intended to be, and it will survive.

    Comment by Hal — January 17, 2005 @ 6:41 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.