ExtremeWisdom

Polls on Social Security

The Left is playing with fire if they think obstructionism can work in the long run.  Here is the prognostication for 2006.

Republicans "give up" on Social Security Reform, and hit the 2006 ground running with making the tax cuts permanent.  The entire 2006 political season is awash in the tax debate.

Bush picks up 2-5 more Senate seats in Nov 2006, and does Social Security Reform in 2007.

Barring a scandal that sticks, the above is a forgone conclusion.

___

Obstructionists are Wrong; Americans Want Social Security Reform

In recent weeks, opponents of Social Security reform have cited media polls to claim decreased public support for reforms to the system. When closely analyzed, however, these polls show absolutely the opposite. It is indisputable that Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of the need to reform Social Security. While there is no consensus on the best solution, the polls show that Americans believe something must be done to fix Social Security now.

Americans understand that Social Security is in trouble and needs to be fixed:

• New York Times/CBS News, conducted June 10-15, 2005
  92% feel that the financial situation of Social Security is in trouble.
• FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, conducted April 25-26, 2005
  74% (and 80% of those under age 55) believe the Social Security system is something that the President and Congress need to fix now.

And want Democrats to offer Social Security solutions:

• New York Times/CBS News, conducted June 10-15, 2005
  67% believe Democrats should offer alternatives ideas for Social Security reform instead of just saying no to any reform ideas and making no changes in the program.
• Zogby/CATO, conducted June 1, 2005
  70% say opponents of President Bush's plan should put their own plan on the table.

Social Security Poll Shows Support for Personal Accounts

One of the reason the left doesn't want informed people is that; once informed; they reject the left.  This is why the media and our schools are so hopelessly slanted.

Poll Show Show Support for Accounts

Most likely voters continue to support President Bush's proposal to let younger workers invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes through personal accounts, a new survey finds.

    The poll by independent pollster John Zogby for the Cato Institute, which is being released today, found that when voters understood the benefits of personal investment accounts, including a better financial rate of return than the current system, the Bush plan was supported by 52 percent of Americans and opposed by 40 percent.

Social Security Poll...and why blacks will eventually start supporting Republicans

Poll shows 2/3 of African Americans believe Social Security is in Trouble

Even polls sponsored by groups opposed to Social Security reform show that key demographic groups understand the problem. According to a survey released by Americans United to Protect Social Security, an organization comprised of groups such as MoveOn.org and the AFL-CIO, 65% of African-Americans believe that Social Security is in a state of crisis or has major problems.*

African-Americans are right to be concerned about Social Security.

• The latest report by the Social Security Trustees shows that the program will start paying out more than it collects in taxes in 2017 and will run out of money by 2041.
• The percentage of elderly African-Americans who rely completely on Social Security grew from 31 percent in 1990 to 38 percent in 2000, according to the Social Security Administration.
• African-Americans receive nearly $21,000 less on a lifetime basis from Social Security's retirement program than whites with similar income and marital status, according to the 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security.

The problem is clear.

We need Social Security reform that protects benefits of retirees and those about to retire, ensures the solvency of Social Security, gives younger workers the option of personal retirement accounts, and does not raise taxes on employers or employees. Voluntary personal retirement accounts would allow young African-Americans the ability to build a nest egg for retirement that they could pass on to their loved ones after their death.

*Americans United to Protect Social Security; African-Americans on Social Security, April 21-26, 2005

We interrupt our campaign against HB755 for a word on Social Security

This Article is on Realclearpolitics, but it is written by the Colorado Blogger Ross Kaminsky.  It bolsters my point that Bush has already won the Social Security debate.

The Wexler tax increase would be the largest in American history, taking an estimated $731 billion from almost 10 million workers in the first ten years. It also disproportionately penalizes older workers, raising taxes on about 3.5 million workers who are within 10 years of retirement and likely at their earnings peak – in other words when their retirement savings potential is near its greatest if the government keeps its hands off their wages.

Wexler thus wants to increase taxes on older workers and hand the money back as a Social Security benefit a few years later, providing an effective return to workers much worse than they would receive in conservatively invested personal accounts or even in bank CDs. In fact, one study notes that in Wexler’s congressional district the average return on Social Security payroll taxes is 0.75% for a married Caucasian man and -1.13% (yes, that’s a negative number) for a single African-American man.

Once Americans understand this dynamic, it can only increase the popularity of President Bush’s plan by comparison. Given the relatively older demographic in Florida it is an especially bad idea for Wexler’s own state. The AARP should be concerned about the damage Wexler’s plan does to those closest to joining its membership.

...more...

Once Americans understand this dynamic, it can only increase the popularity of President Bush’s plan by comparison. Given the relatively older demographic in Florida it is an especially bad idea for Wexler’s own state. The AARP should be concerned about the damage Wexler’s plan does to those closest to joining its membership.

Macro economically, the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation estimates that this tax hike will cost the economy an average of 340,000 jobs and $33 billion of GDP annually for at least ten years.

Yet even a tax increase this large delays the onset of Social Security deficits by just a few years; it does not come close to fixing the solvency problem. The only honest way to avoid Social Security bankruptcy without hamstringing the economy is through a combination of benefit cuts and personal accounts. But politically the Democrats cannot acknowledge that fact.

__

This is the bottom line for the Social Security debate.  Social Security can't be reformed with out personal accounts - period.  No rhetoric can change that.

Build your base - Erode your opposition's

Below is an excerpt from a Washington Post article about how Social Security Reform will blung "Big Labor's" political clout.  This is a good thing.

For Labor Unions, Social Security Is A Matter of Clout

Excerpt:

Which brings us back to Social Security. The Bush effort would do two things to hurt organized labor.

First, it would speed the demise of the unions' preferred type of pension -- the kind that gives unions the most clout in the corporate world -- called defined-benefit funds. They are for the most part controlled by unions and provide set benefits to their retirees.

In contrast, Bush's private accounts would be defined-contribution funds which, like 401(k) plans, have set contributions but not specific benefits that come out in the end. Defined-benefit plans are already losing adherents. Since 1978, the number of defined-benefit plans has fallen to 26,000 from 128,000. If the president's proposal were to succeed, that trend would probably accelerate and further hobble unions.

Second, Social Security private accounts would flood the markets with money controlled by individuals, not organized labor. That would tend to dilute labor's voting strength on shareholder issues in general.

"Union leaders fear losing the bargaining power they have through their pensions and ultimately fear that the entire union model could become obsolete," concludes John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, a major corporate lobbying group.

In fairness, corporations would dearly love to see the AFL-CIO stumble on anything having to do with its corporate campaigns. Business groups have for years railed against labor-led proxy battles as costly nuisances if not outright obstacles to higher profits and growth.

Several companies this year have refused to be shamed by labor into dropping their support for Bush's private-account proposal because they back the larger goal of undermining the unions' pension-fund strategy. If they hang tough now against union pressure on Social Security, they figure that labor's sway in the future might be diminished on almost any issue.

Partisanship also plays a role. Corporate representatives say that part of their enthusiasm for the president's Social Security plan is their belief that support for him and the Republican Party on this top priority will be repaid with many pro-business measures down the road. For parallel reasons, labor is equally eager to help Democrats resist the president.

Companies have another, often-unstated motivation for liking Bush's approach: It offers their best chance to repair Social Security without resorting to a tax increase. Few things repulse an executive more than the prospect of having to pay the government an extra dime. So far at least, Bush has ducked any talk of increasing revenue to close the financial gap.

Try the Social Security Calculator

Go here and see how much better off you are if you are able to choose a private account option.

Do Nothing Democrats V. Bush

Editorial Boards Agree: Inaction Is Not A Solution

	“The Social Security system does need fixing. And the longer Congress ducks it, the more the fix will hurt.” (Editorial, Washington Post, 5/1)
	“Bush's willingness to begin addressing that unpleasant reality puts pressure on Democrats to do the same. They don't want Bush's dessert course because it's politically unpalatable. So what do they want? What dish do they intend to contribute to this political potluck?” (Editorial, USA Today, 5/1)
	“By adjusting the formula for future benefits based on income, Mr. Bush has now embraced the 'fairness' claims that Democrats say they hold dear. So are they serious or not? On first response, not...If Bill Clinton were the President proposing this, Democrats would be doing 'fairness' cartwheels.” (Editorial, Wall Street Journal, 5/2)
	“The president is still holding on to his desire to see part of the Social Security program made into a system of personal investment accounts...Still, there's no good reason for Democrats to walk away now. What the president had to say Thursday is the closest thing to an olive branch one is likely to see in Washington these days.” (Editorial, Portland Press Herald, 5/2)
	“It's time now for Democrats to offer some serious contribution of their own to this debate. So far, four Social Security solvency plans are ready for Senate consideration, none authored by Democrats. Constructive criticism is one thing. Denying the numbers, stroking polls and refusing to help in catching the falling Social Security star is something else.” (Editorial, Grand Rapids Press, 5/8)

The death of Social Security reform has been greatly exaggerated

This John Fund article points out the obvious.  The best "lockbox" is a personal account.

___

Excerpt:

One way to do that would be to create a true "lockbox" that allows people to put their share of the surplus into their own personal account to help fund their retirement. But the account would be limited to no-risk, but marketable, Treasury bills. Every taxpayer who voluntarily chose to create a T-Bill personal account would, in effect, own the key to his own lockbox, containing a significant chunk of their future benefits. The surpluses would become real assets owned by citizens rather than government IOUs--or, more accurate, "I owe me's"--piling up in a filing cabinet in a federal office in West Virginia.

More Evidence on Social Security Polling

This is a very interesting article.  It covers the shallow nature of past Social Security polling, and the shifting sands upon which the numbers are built.

It is a VERY fast & good read.

___

The Social Security polls will shift

Much of this research can be faulted for failure to separate partisanship and opinions of Bush from opinions of Social Security reforms. A common question asks whether voters approve or disapprove of Bush’s handling of Social Security. One poll waded fully into partisan waters by asking voters whom they trust more on Social Security: Bush or Democrats in Congress? Is that a Social Security question or a generic election ballot?

From one perspective, there is nothing wrong with questions such as these. Today, voters know so little about the details of Social Security and its reform that they will indeed respond to potential reforms in a superficial, partisan manner. Democrats who think Bush is an illegitimate president and opposed his Iraq war will reflexively oppose anything else Bush is behind, including changes in Social Security.

But, from another perspective, these sorts of questions fail miserably in getting past voters’ initial reactions to an issue. Eventually, as many voters learn more about the full menu of reform choices, their opinions will step away from narrow partisan positions to broader self-interested positions. Sooner or later, many younger liberal Democrats will start to respond to Social Security more as young workers than as young partisans.

Bush quietly putting Dems in a box

If you look at my posts on Social Security reform, you'll notice that I've been saying that Bush is winning this issue despite the fact that his plan supposedly receives no support.

The Dems seen to forget how Truman ran against a "do nothing Congress".  Bush and the Republicans are set up to gain even more seats against a the Dems - a party devoid of ideas.

Obstructionism isn't a platform.

Time for Dems to step up to the plate

The president advanced a plan called "progressive indexing" that works this way: Lower-income workers would keep all of their promised benefits, while checks to middle- and upper-tier recipients would rise at a slower rate.

It is not a perfect plan, mainly because it includes no new taxes. And means-testing Social Security could erode support among wealthier beneficiaries. But the president made a sound and even courageous offer on a highly controversial issue. In response, Congressional Democrats should now come up with some ideas of their own.