Current Article

Social Security remains our core safety net; from a published LTE to the New York Times

By SusanUnPC on February 6, 2009 at 5:45 AM in Social Security

William Arnone, a dedicated supporter of Hillary Clinton throughout the primaries, sent me a copy of his letter to the New York Times in response to a January 26th editorial, “From Here to Retirement” that — once again — show how out of touch the New York Times’s editors and reporters are with average working Americans. Mr. Arnone brings up the essential common sense points about the plan that will truly protect working people in their retirement years:

To the Editor:

“From Here to Retirement” correctly assesses the failure of the 401(k) revolution to help workers accumulate adequate funds for their retirements. Your recommended solutions to the Obama administration, however, miss the target.

As one who has long been involved with retirement plans as a consultant to large employers, I have seen 401(k)’s morph from their intended role as supplements to traditional pension plans to become the primary retirement vehicle for most American workers.

Your reference to the need for 401(k) improvements and new savings accounts with shared risks overlooks the more pressing need for a retirement plan that will provide guaranteed lifelong income that keeps pace with inflation.

Such a retirement plan has existed for over 70 years: Social Security. As 401(k)’s have tanked and private pensions vanished, Social Security remains the only reliable plan for future retirees and their families. Federal dollars will be much better spent enhancing Social Security, especially for lower-income Americans, than subsidizing new forms of individual savings that have proved ineffective.

William J. Arnone
New York, Jan. 26, 2009

*************************

The once highly popular diarist at Daily Kos, RonK Seattle, wrote some great pieces about the kinds of economic advisers that Barack Obama has, and most of them are pro privatization of Social Security — in other words throwing our money to the wolves of Wall Street. (And we’ve seen lately how that all turned out, with people’s 401Ks turning into worthless junk.)

Check out “The Audiology of Hope: Dogwhistle Economics 102″ to learn more about what RonK Seattle discovered clear back in February 2008. Sadly, the Kossacks were too gaga over Obama to pay any attention to one of Daily Kos’s top contributors and best writers. If only they’d listened to him.

wodiej

the problem w social security is there are too many people taking out that have put nothing in. I am all for helping those less fortunate. But many people are not even making an effort to sustain themselves. I know some of us are capable of more so more is required. But everyone is expected to at least do their best and many people aren’t. If they are going to continue w programs like SS, then there should be more oversight.
Sammie

At one time, I believe there was supposed to be a three legged stool analogy for retirement …. personal savings, pension and social security …. guess those in power have determined that not all of those legs are necessary (of course, many will not save enough in their 401(k)’s, or get hit by investment losses, or end up spending their retirement funds too soon …. ).
candymarl

There might be plenty of SS to go around if our fearless leaders would stop raiding the fund for every pet project. The chickens came home to roost when the baby boomers started to age.

It was the baby boomers that paid the most into SS because, so far, they were the largest population increase. Yes, their parents paid in but not in the same numbers.

Now that the boomers are retiring SS is being touted as a privilege not a right. Considering the greed and lack of oversight on Wall Street I don’t trust them with the SS funds anymore than the politicians.
Linda C.

bingo.
The taxes paid now into social security are actually for the people who are now retired. Considering the baby boomers have been paying for years, the fund should be overflowing with money and excess if politicians would have kept their hands off of it.
CG

from the post a year ago, The Audiology of Hope: Dogwhistle Economics 102, mentioned above:

Susan’s Sunday Plea: Whatever else you do today — drink too much beer, yell in the streets, wish you hadn’t eaten so many ribs, hook up with someone whose name you can’t remember — send this on to everyone you know!

I’m guessing that advice still stands
Sassy

While I feel sorry for those who only have Social Security to live on, it is truly the best investment this country has ever made.
Without these funds many more people would be destitute, and the childen of workers who die at an early age would likely be in orphanages.
Any political party who attempts more tampering with this essential program will face an absolute revolt!
C.S.

FICA = Social Security. Anyone who looks at their salary deductions can see how much they pay into Social Security and it is posted directly to your account via that Social Security number every man, woman, and child must have but which appears on every piece of paper with your name on it from your medical records to your school records. (Hummm, wonder when Soertoro/Obama got his…and are those records sealed also…)

When my father started receiving social security many years ago, his statement included not only his contributions but the interest earned on his contributions. But now they only send a statement of your direct contribution without any interest shown to make it seem like your FICA earnings was far less than it should be.

Social Security was never meant to be in “Entitlements” and only became a budget item when the government “borrowed” from the fund and “forgot” to pay it back (sort of like Soertoro/Obama’s recent tax evader nominees) It is the same as if companies who included pensions as an employee benefit used those pensions as “company funds.” During the Reagan administration when corporate raiding was rampant, the one fund that the raiders wanted and many got was the employee pension funds that weren’t a part of the company “assets”.

Think of those people who lost both company pensions and retirement savings from the S&Ls during the 1980s and you not only won’t wonder how we got here but you will also see your future if the government changes the Federal Insured Contribution Act, commonly known as Social Security.
SFIndie

According to The Heritage Foundation:

Workers do not automatically qualify for Social Security retirement benefits. Instead, they must work and pay a minimum level of Social Security taxes for at least 40 quarters during their working lives. These 40 quarters do not have to be consecutive. Currently, workers earn a credit for each three-month period in which they earn at least $900. Once they have worked and paid Social Security taxes for the required 40 quarters, they are fully qualified to receive Social Security retirement benefits. The formula for retirement benefits are based on a worker’s highest 35 years of earnings.

So, no one’s “taking out that have put nothing in”. If you don’t work and you don’t pay into the Social Security fund through your taxes, you don’t collect Social Security.

And as far as “more oversight”, that oversight should be directed at the government’s stealing from the Social Security funds to spend it on…..well, who knows? There’s no oversight!
mdmdstork

I think SSI was what was being referred to. So much comes out of SS funds which are tied to retirement or contributions to retirement funds
mdmdstork

sorry, I meant “not” tied to
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/02/08/why-social-security-matters-to-all-of-us/ Why Social Security Matters To ALL of Us : NO QUARTER

[...] post is a follow-up to Susan’s excellent post last Friday regarding Social Security remaining this country’s core safety net, for that is truly [...]