Network evening news broadcasts ignored McCain's "disgrace" remark about Social Security
SUMMARY: The evening news programs on ABC, NBC, and CBS have yet to cover Sen. John McCain's statement regarding Social Security -- that "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed" -- even though they have broadcast other remarks McCain made at the same town hall meeting.
ABC's World News, NBC's Nightly News, and the CBS Evening News have yet to cover the following statement Sen. John McCain made about Social Security during a July 7 town hall meeting in Denver: "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed." According to a Washington Post article by reporters Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear, McCain "sought to clarify his remarks" by saying young people are, in McCain's words, "paying so much that they are paying into a system that they won't receive benefits from on its present track that its on, that's the point." However, as Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall has noted, McCain appeared on CNN's American Morning on July 8 -- the day before his reported attempt to "clarify his remarks" -- and echoed his July 7 remarks by stating during a discussion of Social Security that young people "pay their taxes and, right now, their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken. That's why we can fix it." All three networks' nightly news programs have ignored McCain's Social Security comments, and NBC and CBS have done so even though they aired clips of other portions of McCain's Denver town hall meeting.
At the July 7 town hall meeting, McCain had the following exchange with a questioner on the topic of Social Security:
QUESTIONER: Many of the proposals that are being created for people of my generation no longer include Social Security because of the belief that it will not be there. Tell me how you plan to fix it.
McCAIN: Thank you very much. I'd like to start out by giving you a little straight talk. Under the present set-up, because we've mortgaged the -- your -- our children's futures, you will not have Social Security benefits that present-day retirees have unless we fix it, and Americans have got to understand that. Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed. Now, how do you fix it? Now, how do you fix it? You fix it by reaching across the aisle, and you say to the Democrats: "Sit down with me at the table. Sit down with me the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did the last time that Social Security was in deep trouble." And that was way back in 1983.
During the July 8 edition of CNN's American Morning, McCain was interviewed by anchor John Roberts:
ROBERTS: Senator, I'm sure that you're also hearing from them about Social Security, because you say that --
McCAIN: Yeah.
ROBERTS: -- part of this -- part of this plan, if you're going to balance the budget, is to reform Social Security.
McCAIN: Sure.
ROBERTS: You've talked about the idea of private accounts, as President Bush tried to get through and couldn't. What else would you do to reform Social Security?
McCAIN: I would sit down with Democrats and Republicans the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did in 1983.
ROBERTS: Hmm-mm.
McCAIN: And they said, "OK, we've got everything on the table here, let's come to an agreement." The approval rating of Congress right now is 12 percent last time I saw. I know how to work across the aisle. I've done it with Democrats and I've done it for many, many years. And we'll sit down across the table with the backing of the American people.
ROBERTS: But do you have any idea on what you could do?
McCAIN: On the privatization of accounts, which you just mentioned, I'd like to respond to that. I want young workers to be able to, if they choose, to take part of their own money, which is their taxes, and put it into an account, which has their name on it. Now, that's a voluntary thing, it's for younger people. It would not affect any -- any present-day retirees or the system as necessary. So let's describe it for what it is. They pay their taxes and, right now, their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken. That's why we can fix it. We can do it together, Republicans and Democrats alike.
According to a post on Mother Jones' MojoBlog, the Economic Policy Institute's Jared Bernstein said in an email that McCain's July 7 statement "betrays a really quite scary lack of knowledge about basic government," later adding: "I guess the quote suggests he knows about the financing, but the way he says it, it sounds like he just found out and is shocked." From the blog post by Mother Jones Washington fellow Nick Baumann:
Jared Bernstein, the director of the Living Standards program at the Economic Policy Institute, said in an email that he was shocked by McCain's statement:
That is truly an amazing quote. It's like he's saying, "I just found out that taxes come from people ... that's a disgrace." It betrays a really quite scary lack of knowledge about basic government. ... I know he's not into this kind of stuff, but ... it would be hard not to know about the intergenerational financing of Social Security. It's the biggest government transfer -- 1/5 of the damn budget. I guess the quote suggests he knows about the financing, but the way he says it, it sounds like he just found out and is shocked.
I can't imagine how this will play if it goes at all viral. Maybe Social Security is no longer the third rail, but to call it a disgrace ought to be seen as over the top. On the other hand, maybe people will agree with him.
Center for Economic Policy Research co-director Dean Baker also wrote about McCain's July 7 comments in a July 9 post at The American Prospect's Beat the Press blog: "Of course present-day retirees have always been paid their benefits from the taxes paid by current workers. That has been true from Social Security's inception."
From the July 7 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, which aired a clip of McCain's speech at the Denver town hall meeting during a report by NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell:
MITCHELL: Barack Obama didn't let a broken airplane stop him from debating John McCain on the economy long distance, despite being detoured. With gasoline at $4.11 a gallon, both candidates claim to have solutions for lost jobs and rising prices.
On taxes, McCain would lower the corporate tax rate, repeal the alternative minimum tax and make the Bush tax cuts permanent, although he used to oppose them. In contrast, Obama would raise corporate tax rates, give rebates to lower and middle-income workers and the elderly, but let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 a year. McCain says that would amount to a tax increase.
McCAIN: The choice in this election is stark and simple: Senator Obama will raise your taxes -- I won't. I will cut them where I can.
OBAMA: My plan will not raise your taxes, not your income tax, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
[...]
MITCHELL: The two candidates also disagree on trade. McCain supports trade deals like NAFTA; Obama now says he'd reopen NAFTA to negotiate tougher labor rules, although experts say renegotiating NAFTA is no longer possible. Another major difference: the federal budget deficit. Obama supports paying for new programs before increasing the deficit. McCain issued a white paper today promising to balance the budget by the end of his first term, 2013, something independent experts say just isn't possible.
And when McCain gave his speech today, he didn't mention his plan to balance the budget or a proposal to explore privatizing Social Security.
As both candidates search for politically palatable solutions for an economy that is defying easy answers. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, New York.
From a report on the July 7 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, which included a clip from McCain's Denver town hall meeting:
KATIE COURIC (anchor): Meanwhile, in the presidential campaign, the Democratic Party announced today the final night of the party's convention in Denver next month will be moved outside. Barack Obama will accept the nomination at Invesco Field, where the Broncos play football. The stadium seats 76,000 people.
Meanwhile, Senator Obama had to postpone a trip to North Carolina today. His plane from Chicago made an unscheduled landing in St. Louis after a problem developed in the tail. Senator Obama ended up delivering a speech from St. Louis. Both he and John McCain, who campaigned in Denver, are this week making the economy job one. Here's [Capitol Hill correspondent] Chip Reid.
[begin video clip]
REID: Both presidential candidates laid out their economic plans today. For John McCain, there are two basic themes: cut spending --
McCAIN: I'll veto every single bill with wasteful pork barrel spending on it. You can count on it.
REID: -- and cut taxes.
McCAIN: The choice in this election is stark and simple. Senator Obama will raise your taxes -- I won't.
REID: A position that had some passionate fans at today's town meeting in Denver.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Tax us when we eat! You tax us when we sleep! You tax us every which way! Get off of my back!
McCAIN: If you're not busy, I'd like to take you with me wherever I go. I --
REID: McCain also now supports extending the Bush income tax cuts, even though he once opposed them as too generous to the wealthy.
From a report on the July 7 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, which included two clips from McCain's Denver town hall meeting:
CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): John McCain also addressed the subject of the economy today. It is the number one issue on the minds of voters. So, how do their proposals on the economy stack up against one another? We asked our senior political correspondent Jake Tapper and Ron Claiborne, who covers McCain for us, to make a point-by-point comparison.
[begin video clip]
CLAIBORNE: The centerpiece of McCain's economic plan is cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. He proposes lowering corporate tax rates from 35 to 25 percent and retaining the Bush tax cuts that he once voted against.
McCAIN: When you raise taxes in a bad economy, you eliminate jobs. I'm not going to let that happen.
TAPPER: I'm Jake Tapper. On taxes, Barack Obama focuses his tax cuts on middle- and lower-income wage earners. He would increase taxes for higher wage earners.
[...]
CLAIBORNE: On the energy crisis, McCain has proposed more offshore drilling for oil and producing more nuclear energy.
McCAIN: We will build at least 45 new nuclear power plants that will create over 700,000 good jobs to construct and operate them.
TAPPER: On the energy crisis, Obama favors developing more alternative energy sources.
Republican Mindset:
I'm just shocked. Its a disgrace that we pay all these old people all this money. And to think that it comes out of MY taxes. Who are these deadbeat seniors, anyway?
You are purposely distorting the point McCain was making.
When the now seniors were paying social security at the time, the point was that the government would invest it for them, thus making interest, and allowing the seniors to get checks when they retire for more than they put in. It would allow them to meet the modern dollar standard of living given inflation.
When the government decided to start borrowing and using the social security funds for their own pet projects, they essentially "stole" the money from the seniors without giving it back. Now working class people my age, 28, are paying alot of money into this social security program, knowing full well that we dont expect to get it back. No longer is it an investment for our retirement, its nothing more than an added federal income tax.
There is a reason that congress has repeatedly turned down the opportunity for individuals to not pay social security, and elect to invest it in their own 401k's.
This mindset that the government knows better than me how to save my money is ridiculous.
I'm all for helping out the retired people a bit - my parents and grandparents get SS too. But they also invested and saved their own money so they didnt have to rely on SS funds.
In my view, either the government needs to keep their hands out of my cookie jar, or let me have those funds and invest them myself.
How many times have we gone over this in the past week? SS was NEVER set up as a personal retirement accout. Your repeated insistance on that point only highlights the fact that you do not know what you are talking about. In other words, you are being very McCainian.
Do you think it took 30 years for the first SS check to be issued to retired people?
Yes, the system was set up so that the current batch of retired people could get some assistance from the current batch of working people. The whole retirement account spin was a purposeful attempt by Republicans to trick people into thinking that SS wasn't working as well as private retirement accounts so that they could dismantle the system and let the money managers make extra money.
Originally the plan was that people would have to pay into it for 5 years before they'd get monthly benefits - they had to prime the pump to a small extent. They later changed it so that less than 3 years after the program began they started paying benefits.
They immediately offered lump-sum benefits to workers during that interim period. It wasn't a lot of money, but it was offered even at the early stages.
It's always been a program where current workers pay for the benefits of retired workers.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if when a rightwinger like Science got his butt handed to him on a thread like this, he came back and apologized for his superiority complex and thanked us for making him a better informed voter?
Why doesn't that happen? Because they aren't looking to be better informed, and they don't appreciate knowledge, that's why.
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what happened.
This is not an investment account. You're free to set up an investment account for yourself if you want. This is a mandatory social insurance program that helped the poor elderly not suffer so much.
With that insurance, if you need the benefits (ie, if you live past retirement age) you get money until you die. With car insurance, if you have an accident, you get paid by the insurance company. I haven't had an accident in years and years, and have only had one at-fault accident that cost my insurance company a couple hundred dollars in my entire life. All the insurance premiums I've spent could be said to have been wasted. However, if I'd had multiple large insurance claims in the last few years, I would have more than broken even on my insurance premiums.
Social Security is just that - social, meaning the community, security, meaning insurance. It prevents people from being flat broke if they retire without a pension or have a disability that stops them from being able to work, and it also provides benefits to people who are dependent on those wage-earners.
Here's some history if you're really interested in learning more. I don't think you are.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/2007historybooklet.pdf
Here are some FAQ's brought to you by the experts at the Soc Sec Admin.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/hfaq.html
So what you're telling me is that when it was first implemented, people paid into it, and non working citizens immediate started getting checks for nothing?
Your very question betrays your ignorance, and you have no standing to comment on things of which you have no knowledge.
You really should change your handle to "Economics 101," and then take that course. You don't have the credentials to comment until you have learned the basics, and it's very clear you haven't even gotten the prerequisites for the course.
Yes !!! A thousand times YES !!!! That is exactly how social security works!!!! The system has always been pay-as-you-go. FICA payments made today go immediately to social security recipients.
When the system was set up, there were 16 working people for every retired person. The system is in trouble, now, because there's only 2 working people for every retired person, and the ratio is decreasing.
We needed to pay off the national debt, so we'd be able to borrow to fund social security. Instead, we gave away thoroughly irresponsible tax breaks to people who didn't need it.
Paying for seniors is not a disgrace, it's the way it works.
When the system was set up, there were 16 working people for every retired person. The system is in trouble, now, because there's only 2 working people for every retired person, and the ratio is decreasing.
Where did you get this 2 to 1 figure??? The closest I find is that figure as a projection for the Japanese retirement system in the year 2025.
Let me change that: 3 to 1. It's been about 3 to 1 since 1975. See http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html
My initital and more important point stands. McCain has no idea what he's talking about. Probably got the information from Phil Gramm.
It's been closer to 3.5 to 1 then it's been 3 to 1, and it's been at that level for more than 35 years, or about 2 generations.
This is not a huge concern, really. The rise in FICA in the mid 80's was good to raise additional billions of dollars to sock away money in the trust fund, and it will help with the lower numbers of wage-earners to retirees ratio for decades to come.
It is very convenient, according to the following, to read into the original Social Security Bill "the point was that the government would invest it for them, thus making interest, and allowing the seniors to get checks when they retire for more than they put in." I've read the Bill and I cannot find this. Could you point this out to us learned voters?
There is a generation now, which expects something for nothing. So you expect to put $10,000 into Social Security and upon retirement you expect to receive a million. And then the Republicans play on this fantasy by telling you that you would be better off "investing" that money. Of course they don'twant you to know that they run the firms that would be handling your "investment" nor do they want you to think about the risks. The stock market, contrary to popular opinion, is not the Lottery. If you think you can get rich by "playing" the market you will learn a ahrd lesson when the market plays you.
And please rtell us what will happen to those "investors" at age 65 when they find that the ups and downs of the market, the exorbitant "fees" associated with handling their accounts, have eaten up most of their investment? Do they then turn to the Federal government and ask for relief? "I've wasted all my retirement money in the market and now I need the U.S. taxpayers to help me out" You don't have to be an economist to know what a risky financial venture "privatization" is and how it's truly designed to line the pockets of the "handlers. I suggest that you petition the Social Security Administration to opt out of the system now. Then you can set up a web site showing us less-informed how well you are dong in the market. Good luck!
no, the point mccain was making is that he doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground about taxes, period. FICA is merely his most recent public statement of ignorance on the subject. that it was set up to do exactly that which sen. mccain decries is a classic example of why he would be well advised to just STFU about the subject.
i say this as a cpa, who has spent the past 30 years working in the fed. tax field.
but hey, what do i know?
I have to assume that the MSM knows McCain was showing (yet again) his collosal ignorance and are (yet again) covering for him. Otherwise they'd be all over this calling him a maverick who'll say the things others are afraid to say. I wonder what would have happened if Obama had made the same blunder? Would there be a total media black out like it never happened? Or would the lead story on every evening news program be 'Is a junior senator who doesn't even understand how Social Security works qualified to be President?'
The truth is that it's only close because of the lousy job the Press has done.... virtually ignoring the corruption oozing out of the Bush administration while they try desperately to stick Obama with the "flip flop" label... all the while giving Grampy a pass on his numerous flip flops and blunders.
I think you give the press far too much credit. If you actually think that everyone who votes, does so just from what they hear on some talk show or in the left/right leaning newspaper articles, I think you're a bit off base.
People as a whole when in masses are dumb. Individual persons are much smarter than the press gives them credit for.
That may be, but I think your argument breaks down with your assumption that the average person, no matter how smart, spends a lot of time searching for political information.
My wife is a perfect example. She is very intelligent, but could care less about hard news. Her idea of a news show is the Daily 10 on E. For these people, the things put forth on the major news broadcasts are all they will get and right now they are getting intentional favoritism of McCain.
"Could be, but I think people are smart enough to seperate the BS on both sides - and pay attention to the few major issues that hit home with them."--science101
I wish I could be as confident as you, but I still occasionally overhear electrical engineers (very intelligent people) who work with a different group, repeating some of the dumbest arguments like flag-pin, Obama's a Muslim, he won't say the pledge...and on and on. And I have had the pleasure of listening to hundreds of these average folks when they called into the congressmen I worked for - repeating Rush verbatim.
My old boss and still-friend says that Obama is a Muslim who will let China invade the country.
Um..... I thought that SocSec was created so that present day workers were paying for those that already did their share? Silly me....
How is that a disgrace?
What is a disgrace? When Republicans began to use the SocSec money as a way to balance the budget or to try and hide the waste the incured!
An equal disgrace was when the Democrats followed suit and did it as well!
Another disgrace is these corporate whores trying to make the case that SocSec needs to be privatized!
Um..... I thought that SocSec was created so that present day workers were paying for those that already did their share? Silly me....
You couldnt be more wrong. SocSec was created as a way of mandatory investment for yourself so you had something guarunteed to live off. The intention was that you only get back what you put in, plus interest from the government investing it.
They way you are wording is in fact the present day SocSec system, that is a disgrace, because they government started taking and borrowing funds from the SocSec accounts and not repaying it, thus FORCING the modern day SocSec payers to actually pay someone elses way. There is a reason that almost all economists and most government officials will admit that the present day 20 something year olds who are paying into SocSec should not plan on actually getting any of it back. Its nothing more than an additional tax now, not an investment.
"Social Security is largely a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees."
Source: http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm (underline and boldface mine)
The person who couldn't be more wrong is you.
Since its inception Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. There are a lot of details that we don't need to cover that happened in the meantime, but in the 1980's they recognized that because of the baby boomers (and their kids) there was going to be a shortfall, so they upped the amount of taxes everyone paid to do some pre-funding of that estimated outgo. It was still a pay-go program.
There's never been money socked away someplace. It would be stupid to sock away money. My savings account at the bank is not kept in the vault, but is loaned out to earn interest. So are government funds, including monies in the Social Security trust fund. IOU's will be repaid.
The issue is deficit spending, not the Social Security trust fund.
"There is a reason that almost all economists and most government officials will admit that the present day 20 something year olds who are paying into SocSec should not plan on actually getting any of it back. Its nothing more than an additional tax now, not an investment."
Care to name the "almost all economists?" I thought not.
I can name at least one economist who disagrees with you; see below.
In a previous post in this discussion, you wrote:
"Now working class people my age, 28, are paying alot of money into this social security program, knowing full well that we dont (sic) expect to get it back."
Leaving aside the rhetorical looseness of using the phrase "knowing full well," which implies a certainty of position, in conjunction with the phrase "we don't expect," which is entirely opinion-based...
Using pessimistic assumptions, Social Security is fully funded until 2040--those who retire during that time frame will get the expected return. Those who retire after that will get some money back, but not necessarily the current payout. However, a small tweak to the system will ensure that those people also get the full payout. So if you retire in, say, 2050 (at the age of 70), you can be confident that you will receive a decent monthly social security check.
My source is Krugman (see, for e.g., http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E4D8103FF936A35750C0A9629C8B63). What's yours?
Sure glad your login name isn't "Econ101."
Another disgrace is these corporate whores trying to make the case that SocSec needs to be privatized!
You're trying to tell me that its a disgrace for the individuals who feel they can better invest their own money than the government can? The government has already proven that they cannot keep their hands out of the cookie jar. The current system obviously is a joke. Why not let people invest it themselves? Whats the harm in that - besides the government not taking a piece without repaying it?
"Elementary school science class," you really need to stop posting on this subject. You merely show your colossal ignorance every time you press the "Post" button. Everything you have said about SS is either a lie or a complete lack of understanding of the program.
I think it may be time for you to change your handle again, "Columbus." You've used up all the (admittedly small amount of) credibility in your current one with your astonishing lack of knowledge of any subject.
You're trying to tell me that its a disgrace for the individuals who feel they can better invest their own money than the government can?
Social Security is a community insurance program. It's not an investment.
The government has already proven that they cannot keep their hands out of the cookie jar.
It doesn't matter if the government 'spent' that money. The US Govt's IOU's are always going to be good, and so they'll pay back the Social Security trust fund. It is true that the Fed Govt has overspent overall, but that's not a flaw with Social Security!
The current system obviously is a joke.
The current system is not a joke. It's a very well run social insurance program that has allowed multiple generations to retire and not be flat broke, and retire and have a little extra money, and be the spouse or dependent child of a wage earner and not starve if that worker dies or becomes disabled.
Why not let people invest it themselves?
No one is stopping people from investing. Everyone needs to participate in the social insurance program for it to succeed since current workers pay for retired workers.
Whats the harm in that - besides the government not taking a piece without repaying it?
The "harm in that" is just what I said above. The government has not, won't, and can't take a piece of the Social Security trust fund without paying it back.
You're conflating two separate issues. Taking money from the Social Security trust fund or borrowing it from China all requires that the Feds pay the money back, with interest. It will all get paid back.
Science.....
That is exactly my point!
Government run by those that do it for the good of society can and would care for my SocSec money to the best of their abilities! I have no doubt to that!
But since our government is being running by a group largely consisting of corporate whores who's only goal seems to be dimantling our government to make it easier for their paymasters to steal away more of our commons!!
This includes both Repubs and Dems..... and that is very sad!
I believe in this country, its people and its government, what I don't believe in are those that care more about holding onto power and finding new and creative ways to enrich themselves at our expense..... those people are the real disgrace.... and todays problems can be traced back to the beginning of this country to be sure and also,
The Santa Clara v Southern Railroad debacle where corporations stole 'personhood' illegally in 1886.... and
Reagan's little snip of the nine worst words you can hear is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" has set the tone for the pathetic "Me" society that you seem to want to defend, instead of the "We" society that our founding fathers spilled their blood trying to create and the tearing down of the solar panels from the White House and setting us into the foreign policy issues we have today!
The NewDeal of FDR's was a great anmd grand idea that has been besmirched and soiled by corporate whores..... and Bush/Cheney are the ultimate in whoring one's self!
What happens when all of those people who invest their own money lose it by investing in say an ENRON or Bear Sterns, type stock?
You ask "Whats the harm in that (letting individuals rely entirely on their own investments for their security in retirement and in disability) - besides the government not taking a piece without repaying it?" Here's the harm: 1. A significant percentage of the population are poor savers. They may have all the right intentions, to save money for the future, but either through circumstance or personal failing they are simply unable to save a sufficient amount over the course of their working lives. That's well over 50% of the adult U.S. population, right there. 2. Some become physically disabled before retirement age, before they have saved enough to support themselves for the rest of their lives. 3. Many will be poor stock timers / lousy investors. With self directed investments, they will keep chasing last year's winning stocks and industries, and end up with poor or even negative returns. 4. Many seniors with savings will nevertheless be miserable and depressed in retirement, watching their savings total tick down each month and year. For them it will be like watching a countdown to their financial ruin. Even if their savings are sufficient to last an average lifetime, without a guaranteed pension or SS to fall back on they would be miserable. With depleted mental states many would unnecessarily start eating dog food, worried that their savings will someday run out. That will even occur among some seniors whose savings are actuarially sufficient to last them to age 100! 5. Those who do deplete their savings, and who have no family to fall back on, would land under bridges with tin cups. Millions of seniors would end their lives this way, which would be a total disgrace for what used to be "the richest nation on earth". You would see many thousands of elderly people living and dying under bridges in your local towns and cities, and only then you would realize how good the Social Security system had been, back when it existed.
The present system needs one simple fix: Instead of having the surplus sit in U.S. Treasuries in a file drawer, the government should put the surplus to work by dollar cost average investing it into an internationally-based stock index, with rules stating the government cannot redirect or adjust the investment in any particular way. When the population bulge requires tapping the savings, they should be redeemed by steady share redemptions over time. However by all means do NOT otherwise "privatize" the system in any way that jeapordizes the financial security of hard working Americans who reach retirement age!
If the disgrace is that there is doubt that revenues between now and 2042 won't be enough to cover benefit payments, then the solution is not to mention private accounts since there's been no plan that included private accounts that solved any funding shortfall issue!
If there's a disgrace that we don't have enough funding set aside, then why isn't he railing about the shortfall in Medicare that's rearing its ugly head much, much sooner?
http://www.cbpp.org/3-25-08health.htm
Social Security’s funding shortfall is relatively small and manageable.
Medicare’s financial problems are much more challenging.
Social Security funds are always used for Social Security purposes. When Social Security or Medicare collects more in payroll taxes and other income than it pays in benefits and other expenses, the Treasury invests the surplus in interest-bearing Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Social Security and Medicare can redeem these securities whenever needed to pay future benefits. Congress fully anticipated this outcome when it enacted the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission in 1983, and Social Security has run a surplus in every year since 1984. Under current projections, Social Security will continue to run surpluses until 2027, and its redemption of the trust fund’s assets will allow it to pay full benefits until 2041.
The Social Security surplus helps lower the debt owed to the public. When the rest of the budget is in deficit, a Social Security annual cash surplus reduces the amount that the government has to borrow from the public and thereby makes it easier to afford Social Security in the future.
It is a disgrace that President Bush hasn't pushed through the changes that look to be necessary to fully fund Social Security for the next few decades.
It's not a disgrace that wage-earners today are paying for retirees and disabled people and their dependents. That's what a fair and just society does.
If McCain wants to say that it's sad and disgraceful that Bush failed to do one of the tasks he should have done as President, let him do it!
science101, are you really as ignorant as you appear, or is this just a way for you to get the attention you so desperately crave, and don't get at home or work?
you consistently demonstrate, regardless of the issue being discussed, that you have no clue whatever.
do everyone, including yourself, a favor: do some basic research, before regaling us with your idiotic rants.
McCain IS RIGHT about one thing.
He said he doesn't know anything about economics. Now I believe him on that 100%