What is this sentence doing in Obama's speech?
And if everybody is still talking about privatizing Social Security, they need to be clear: It will not happen on my watch.
No Democrats are talking about privatization as a serious threat except Obama. He talked about it in his address on the anniversary of Social Security and he talked about it today.
Bush tried very hard to get privatization on the table; even with a Republican Congress he got nowhere. Now we have all seen what can happen to a 401K in a down market -- many of us know people who had planned to retire but are still working because of the decline in the value of 401Ks. (By the way, mine is still in good shape thanks to the great advice I got from a Kos diarist!) Given that recent experience, there is no way that privatization will be a threat in the near term, unless Obama keeps pushing the Overton window to include privatization by mentioning it every chance he gets. Obama needs to address the very real threats of benefit cuts and raising the retirement age -- items that have become threats only because Obama's own appointments to the Deficit Commission are making it clear that they intend to consider them.
It is very scary that Obama chose to appoint people such as Simpson, who clearly wants to mess with Social Security; it is even scarier that Obama does not get rid of Simpson, an at-will appointee, after Simpson makes remarks that show how much he wants to attack Social Security, a program with overwhelming popular support; it is scariest that Obama has given two speeches in which he draws the line at privatization rather than addressing the benefit-cut and retirement-age issues that have been raised by his own appointees to the Deficit Commission and which have gotten considerable negative press.
Obama made some good points today, but I can't help but think that this second mention of privatization as something that needs to be defended against is a very bad sign. Social Security doesn't need Obama to defend it against privatization. It needs Obama to defend it against the very real threats of benefit cuts and a rise in the retirement age. It is horrifying to see Obama skirt those issues, especially since preventing benefit cuts and keeping the retirement age the same have tremendous popular support. I am almost beginning to think that Social Security needs someone to defend it against Obama.
My message to Obama, as a Democrat, is: "No, everyone is not talking about privatizing Social Security. Only you are talking about it. Please, please stop!"
Update: People have commented that there are Republicans mentioning privatization of Social Security. I have updated to make my point clear.
Updates 2-16: Why can't Obama say that he will veto any legislation that would increase age limits or decrease benefits for SS? Forcefully! (see Laker's comment below)
The President could put all this to rest right now by declaring unequivocally that he will VETO any legislation that raises the age or reduces the benefit. This is an electoral no-brainer. The fact that he declines to make such an obvious pledge is what is fueling such concern about his ultimate objective. (see WisePiper's comment below)
If the Dems roll over in the lame duck session and pass the commission recommends, this will do two things: 1)social security will be weakened to the extent that partial privatizing will come about and 2)this will greatly injure the Democratic Party for years to come. (see maryabein's comment below)
The only actual Republican that article even implies actually said they want to privatize Social Security is Sean Duffy (R-WI), but doesn't link to any actual quote or evidence except the Democratic ad saying Duffy is saying so. (see DocGonzo's comment below)
Pretty blatant use of the good cop bad cop approach. But it works and the public will end up taking what they get. Just think about the timing of all this. It's incredible. (see BigAlinWashSt's comment below)
Privatisation of social security is a red-herring; they know that there are not enough votes for it and given the economic crash it would be catastrophic. Of course this will not happen under Obama's watch; GW Bush could not force it through. This is a cover for allowing negotiation of cuts to social security payments and/or forced increases to retirement age. (see NY brit expat's comment below)
Everything that went into SS, above what was needed to pay current retirees, went into the general fund to help offset the lost revenue resulting from the income tax cuts. What really happened is a huge redistribution of income and wealth from working Americans to high-income taxpayers over the past three decades. (see Mike Taylor's comment below)
What is "funny" (there isn't anything funny about messing with Social Security) is that the Republicans haven't jumped in full force, or even quarter force, to take up the privatization fight against Democrats and their evil socialist ways. Obama and a few Democrats seem to be fighting the strawman of their own creation. Quite frankly it looks stupid. Hell, it is stupid. (see MindRayge's comment below)
This is all smoke..the threat in December is cuts - not privatization and our President is being careful to keep focusing on that one aspect only. Until he says any cuts are off the table - I will keep believing we are being played. (see Sydserious' comment below)
I feel a setup coming. We will be told to be happy when they raise retirement age to 70 because, hey, at least we didn't privatize. (see draghnfly's comment below)
Oh, it'll be 69. Because Boehner said 70. And, it'll be "At least it's not 70". (see JesseCW's comment below)
Those who can remember that Clinton completed the GHWB agenda on NAFTA and reducing the capital gains tax ... cringe whenever Obama speaks of Social Security or public education. (see Marie's comment below)
We can't rely on Obama and many Dems for that matter to protect SS without severe prodding from the people. We really need to stir up shit by blasting Repubs and weak-kneed Dems for even entertaining the thought of cutting SS. (see an Ian S comment below)
What the President should be doing is what others have said namely state very clearly that Social Security is completely off the table for the Catfood Commission. (see a MindRayge comment below)
He needs to dissolve that committee...He needs to fire them all NOW..They are using their platform to push a lot of really destructive propaganda about social security and medicare too...I'm pissed. (see evangeline135's comment below)