Obama v. McCain on Social Security

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:12:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Saving social security was the issue du jour on the campaign trail. John McCain, speaking to an AARP conference, did his best to frighten the audience.

"Social Security is going broke. Social Security is going broke. Hello?!"

McCain's plan to address the projected insolvency [his word] of the Social Security Trust Fund is to "reach across the aisle" and "change Washington." He also promises "the creation of a bipartisan commission to propose solutions." Hey, while we're at it, let's get a bipartisan commission to tell us how to get out of Iraq. Oh, we did?

[more ...]

Barack Obama proposes to apply the social security payroll tax (now capped at $102,000 of income) to earnings that exceed $250,000 per year. Obama has a plan to address ~~insolvency~~ the Fund's projected shortfall. McCain doesn't.

McCain does have a plan to permit workers to invest some of their social security payroll deduction in private accounts. In his AARP remarks, Obama associated McCain with President Bush's 2000 privatization plan. Privatization isn't a favored word in the senior citizen vocabulary, so it's no surprise that McCain denied that he would privatize social security. McCain assured the audience that his plan was voluntary and would be offered to younger workers without affecting their benefits.

Perhaps partial privatization (for now) would be a more accurate label for the McCain plan. Whatever you call it, McCain hasn't explained what he'll do if workers decide not to privatize their social security investments and the Trust Fund "goes broke. Hello?!"

< Rep. McCollum to Examine Police Misconduct in St. Paul | How Religion Guides Sarah Palin >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama v. McCain on Social Security | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Argh! (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Steve M on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:25:12 AM EST

There is no need for a "plan to address insolvency"!! Sigh.

Indeed ... (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by FreakyBeaky on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:44:53 AM EST

... because there's no insolvency.

If I had to pick the policy proposal of Obama's that I like the least, this payroll tax/donut hole thing that does not need to be done would probably be it.

Nowhere near as crappy as privatization, though (as if it needs to be said).

And why (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by boredmpa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:39:03 AM EST

Is this the issue du jour on the campaign trail? Oh, that's right: because Obama parrots/ed right wing talking points on the matter.

I believe that's my 1 of 4 annoyed leftist comments for the day.

: Obama parrots/ed right wing talking points (none / 0) (#8)
by mm on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:21:03 AM EST

Obama raised the social security "crisis' issue during the primary campaign so he could explicity attack Senator Clinton's character.
He also explicity endorsed the republican framing of this issue:

OBAMA (9/23/07): My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available. But what's critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.
As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don't think Social Security is going to be there for them. They don't believe it's going to be there for them.
Paul Krugman was viciously attacked by the Obama campaign for even writing about Obama's bizarre statements.
For this, Obama should have been soundly rejected by so called progressives. Instead, they covered their eyes and covered their ears.
Does anyone want to bet that if Obama ever gets his chance to open up this can of worms that compromises with the privatizers in the republican party will not be made?
I tend to prefer Senator Clinton's position.

"I do not believe it is in a crisis," she said of the retirement program.
Bob Somerby said it best a long time ago.

Let's review: It's astounding to see a Major Dem pimping Social Security as a big, troubling issue. It's astounding to see one Dem attacking another because she won't go along with that plutocrat claim--especially when he's been reciting the old chestnut about college kids. This claim has been the tool of plutocrats over the course of the past twenty-five years. Now, we see a Major Dem pimping this line--and criticizing Clinton's troubling "character" because she won't go there with him.

[ Parent ]

ok, i'll add my own, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by cpinva on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:50:09 AM EST

so you needn't waste one.

this was another area where sen. obama either had not the slightest clue what he was going on about, or chose to use the same "scare" tactics as mccain.

TChris, how many times does it need to be explained on this site, neither social security or the trust fund are going "insolvent"?

now, if the same level of benefits, plus COL increases, are to be maintained, then clearly changes need to be made, and obama has an interesting idea. but please stop using the term "insolvent", with respect to social security, it just isn't applicable.

mccain is just totally clueless.

Why is it a terrible idea (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by frankly0 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:33:21 AM EST

to propose a "solution", as has Obama, for a non-existent problem such as the "insolvency" of SS?

Because, once it is accepted by all parties that the problem must be "solved", then all potential solutions will go on the table and be considered. Obama can propose his "solution", but the Republicans can propose their "solutions", which can very well involve plans that sound to the public as if they are more attractive (because they involve "personal ownership" and "choice", etc.), but in fact gut SS as we know it. It is simply anybody's guess which "solution" would prevail, because it would depend on who won the war on spinning the package.

Once upon a time, the entire progressive blogosphere understood this danger, and posted and commented on it for the better part of a year.

Then Obama merely begged to differ, and suddenly memories failed completely, and it was all rendered inoperative. They no longer knew what you were talking about when you brought up the subject. Ask Josh Marshall -- perhaps the biggest hypocrite and phony in the blogosphere -- about it, and I'm sure you'd get a very baffled look on his face.

How else can Obama get the (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Radix on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST

extra tax increase from those making over 250K? That's why he's being dis-honest about SS. Otherwise he won't be able to get the SS tax cap increased.

How Does McCain Differ From Bush (none / 0) (#5)
by john horse on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:29:29 AM EST

regarding Social Security? I see much difference in their schemes to privatize Social Security.

I have two problems with the McCain/Bush scheme.
First, the premise that Social Security is "going broke" is inaccurate. Its not in that bad of shape. According to the economist Paul Krugman the Social Security shortfall is minor (if it exists at all).

But lets assume that McCain and Bush's premise is correct. Privatizing social security will make the problem worse. The reason is this. The benefits for current beneficiaries are paid out of current Social Security taxes. Since current taxes go to current benefits, there are only two ways that you can set private accounts up. Either you pay for the private accounts by cutting current benefits or the government will have to borrow in order to set up private accounts.

So the question that I would like to pose to those who advocate private accounts is how much will have to be borrowed in order to set up the private accounts? And if the problem is that the system is going broke then how does borrowing more money for private accounts solve the system?

Obama and his searching for a clue (none / 0) (#6)
by koshembos on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:55:10 AM EST

Krugman said that there is no social security problem until about 2050. Obana, however, with righty advisers has decided otherwise, Postpartisanship at its best.

Obama should buy a page from McCain game plan. Blame McCain for wanting to raid social security in order to give the money to the rich. Don't argue whether McCain said or what he said; just say that he wants to steal the money for his wife's friends.

As a friend said to me many years ago: "don't talk to them nicely; insult them."

Obama or McCain rhetoric? (none / 0) (#7)
by ding7777 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:12:47 AM EST

"reaching across the aisle"
"bipartisan solutions"
"change Washington"

Where's Al Gore and his lockbox (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:46:16 AM EST

when we need him? I want a lockbox on social security, it's not that far away.