Recently, this is what FactCheck had to say about Obama's attack on McCain regarding the privatization of Social Security: (P.S., I recently added them as a recommended site - You Decide - As I allow myself to retort!)
Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees (would not have been affected. factcheck.org September 20, 2008
Well, that would have affected perhaps the millions whom are on disability. Which leads to the fact that THIS part of the statement is true (see below as to how privatization of younger workers AFFECTS the payments of current recipients):
Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. factcheck.org September 20, 2008
And as to this statement:
(From Obama) Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings. factcheck.org September 20, 2008
Yes, I know many retirees that have investments on Wall Street (such as the holdouts with Microsoft, etc. - I personally told them to dump it this summer). Life savings IS NOT Social Security, so please address the facts of the speech.
That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005. factcheck.org September 20, 2008
Umm, no, but details ARE coming up (Patience is a virtue). McCain IS proposing to cut the amounts of benefits recipients receive, perhaps not 50%, but up to 20% or more. And future cuts would not be out of the question (if his proposals had proven to be favorable).
Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so. factcheck.org September 20, 2008
The problem with this - as pointed out by all concerned (i.e. congresses, and why it didn't pass) - IS THAT CURRENT PARTICIPANTS WOULD BE AFFECTED. That's right. But how, you may ask? Because, due to the years of raiding of the Trust Account for other "Emergency Purposes", the system is now a PAY AS YOU GO system. That means, the taxes coming in PAY for the benefits that recipients receive now. Ergo, if you divert the taxes of those born AFTER 1950 (and how many is that you may wonder?), BENEFITS WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINABLE FOR THOSE ALREADY ON THE SYSTEM (even if its only 4% or so). Thanks (though Bush isn't the first to want to raid the fund, others have done it since Reagan).
It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent for this year, for example, and despite gains in other years it is still barely above where it was at the start of 2000. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990's. factcheck.org September 20, 2008
I will be forthcoming with an article re: the failure of the bailout to actually fix the problem - the predestined crash of the economy. Let's just say, that as the site for Stop the Debt Consumerism, this just doesn't hold true (think housing bubble replaced by stock market bubble).
While McCain has voted in favor creating private Social Security accounts in the past, and endorsed Bush's 2005 proposal (which never came to a vote in Congress), he is not making a strong push for them as part of his campaign. In fact, a search for the term "Social Security" on the McCain-Palin Web site brings up the following: "No documents were found." factcheck.org September 20, 2008
And, On his Web site, McCain says he "supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts — but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept." The Web site does not specify how those accounts would operate. But McCain supported President Bush's plan in 2005 to allow some workers to place a limited amount of their payroll taxes into private accounts, which would have been invested in stock or bond funds. From CNN's Josh Levs September 21, 2008
Well, THAT is the meat and potatoes of my argument. You see, I was facing a few forum debates regarding Obama's pre-nomination status, particularly among VERY disgruntled Hillary supporters. My stance had, and has always been, regardless of whom won the nomination, I would support the candidate BASED ON THE ISSUES, NOT WHETHER THEY WERE A WOMAN VS. A MAN (perhaps race did have something to do with their arguments, but if so, they could not admit it).
So, as opposed to relying on various blogs spouting their interpretation based on whom they supported (at that time, yes, Obama was supposed to be a Muslim), in May and June of 2008, I was forced to rely on the economic policies of the respective websites for McCain and Obama.
AT THAT TIME, McCain's plan laid out specifics for Social Security, though it was WELL HIDDEN!! However, Privatization was laid out as a way to shore up the "FAILING" system (note, its not failing yet, people whom were taxed by it - should receive the benefits of it, and if you folks didn't have the money earmarked for other purposes, we wouldn't be having this discussion!!)
The Plan ALSO CALLED FOR A REDUCTION OF BENEFITS - UP TO 20% or more!! The pages were there, they have since been removed from the site (since this would have DEFINITELY brought a loss to the beleagued campaign that needed a Palin nomination to reboot its base). There was not doubt, that the Obama campaign had access to these pages (which went POOF - to bad I didn't save a copy). And, Obama's campaign statements WERE IN FACT, based on the information provided by McCain's Economic plan. (What candidate would NOT be spelling out their position on Social Security in detail - given the Senior and disability Vote - Just check with AARP!!)
But wait - we have another OOPS from factcheck.org:
The "price indexing" would have tied the growth to the rate of price inflation, rather than to the growth of wages, as is the case now. Wages have historically risen faster than prices, so the current wage-indexed system pushes benefits for future retirees up faster than the rate of inflation. The "progressive" part would have held down the growth only for higher-income and middle-income workers, while allowing benefits for lower-income workers to rise in line with the current wage-based formula. factcheck.org Updated: September 20, 2008
Where do these guys get this stuff? A mass amount of media and "economic advisers" seem to have the INITIAL calculation for benefits confused with the Annual Increase (COLA) for current recipients. The annual increase in social security is based on the rise of inflation from the previous year for the third quarter indices. In fact, they use the lower CPI-W (wage, clerical workers) vs. the CPI-U (Inflation index for Urban workers, usually referring to management level).
Now, looking at the Social Security site, I can see where everyone is getting thrown off, as in Wage Indexed (which actually refers to the lower wages of Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)). That is the wage used - which is lower than the CPI-U, as the computation to base for INFLATION purposes.
From the Social Security Website:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html
How is a COLA calculated?
The Social Security Act specifies a formula for determining each COLA. In general, a COLA is equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of one year to the third quarter of the next.
Computation of 2.3-percent COLA
For the December 2007 COLA, we measure the increase in the average CPI-W from the third calendar quarter of 2006 to the third quarter of 2007. These averages are 199.067 and 203.596 for the third calendar quarters of 2006 and 2007, respectively, and are derived from monthly CPI-Ws developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/wageindexed.html
Amounts that Increase with Average Wages
Introduction
By "wage-indexed amounts," we mean amounts that increase annually with the the national Average Wage Index. A table of automatic increases lists both cost-of-living adjustments and wage-indexed amounts for recent years. Types of wage-indexed amounts are listed below.
And, http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
Latest index
The national average wage index for 2006 is 38,651.41
Indexed earnings used to compute initial benefits
When we compute a person's retirement benefit, we use the national average wage indexing series to index that person's earnings. Such indexation ensures that a worker's future benefits reflect the general rise in the standard of living that occurred during his or her working lifetime.
The CPI is the Consumer Price Index, http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/, and is used as the basis for computing inflation.
The Consumer Price Indexes (CPI) program produces monthly data on changes in the prices paid by urban consumers for a representative basket of goods and services.
I will be sending this post to FactCheck, and see what they have to say. ;')
Copyright © 2008 (FIH) FutureInsights All Rights Reserved
Please feel free to Talk Back!!
Jump to: Cats Rule - The Sister Site