Letter to the Editor Suggests McCain's Tactics Would Devastate Social Security

McCain wants to follow George W. Bush's plan that would slash guaranteed benefits for millions of seniors, survivors and people with disabilities and the same plan that would explode the national debt, all without adding a single day to the life of Social Security – not one single day.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - If there was any doubt that Senator John McCain is as bad as President Bush or worse on Social Security – out the window of the 'Straight Talk Express' it went at his recent town hall campaign event in Denver. When asked about his position, McCain said "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. It's an absolute disgrace." An "absolute disgrace?"

Actually, Americans have a pretty good idea how Social Security works, Senator. It’s the same pay-as-you-go system it’s always been since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt conceived it over seven decades ago - delivering rock-solid guaranteed benefits for millions of retirees every day since.

It’s unfortunate that Senator McCain feels the need to use such extreme political rhetoric to push his Social Security agenda at the behest of his friends on Wall Street. McCain told the Wall Street Journal in March that: "As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it."

This is the exact same misguided plan that Bush proposed in 2005 that was quickly and overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. The same Bush plan that would turn Social Security from a guarantee into a guaranteed gamble by diverting trillions of dollars away from the Social Security trust fund to pay for risky private investment accounts – money that would otherwise be used to pay benefits.

The same Bush plan that would slash guaranteed benefits for millions of seniors, survivors and people with disabilities and the same plan that would explode the national debt, all without adding a single day to the life of Social Security – not one single day.

If nothing was changed, Social Security will continue paying full benefits until the year 2046, so Sen. McCain’s calls to tear down the entire house to fix the kitchen sink through privatization is more than a little reckless and raises serious questions about his judgment.

No, Senator McCain - Social Security is not "an absolute disgrace." Your promise to dismantle it with a risky investment scheme is.

Known formerly as Americans United to Protect Social Security, Americans United for Change was founded in 2005 to lead to the successful national campaign to defeat President Bush’s privatization proposal.

Here is the video story with McCain's ambitions, courtesy of YouTube: John McCain on Social Security: "It's An Absolute Disgrace

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark July 18, 2008 4:12 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Since we seem to be dealing in jokes here re S/S, starting with McCain endorsement of private enterprise via Bush plan for privatizing everyone's S/S for exploitation via the stock market and Wall St., thought you-all might enjoy some other McCain jokes. Here they are: (Excerpt from Media Matters weekly report; see website.) "Then there's John McCain -- the media regularly tell us how funny he is. And it's true, he tells jokes all the time. Like the one he told last year, when he encountered a mannequin at a campaign event - which he described as a "dummy" and (wrongly) said was named "Hillary." If the humor value in calling Hillary Clinton a "dummy" escapes you, keep in mind that the speaker is a guy who keeps talking about Czechoslovakia in the present tense, despite the fact that that nation ceased to exist 15 years ago. A little funnier now, isn't it? At another event, McCain sang "Bomb Iran," (roughly) to the tune of "Barbara Ann." ------------------ If that seems a bit severe, address complaints to Media Matters, a solid source, rather than to me...time's a'wasting (I'm 90 !) and I have better things demanding time and true concern.

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 11:33 am (Pacific time)

To all: Old fumblefingers having a problem today...but here's "see with own eyes" re worker wages as intended earlier: What today's economy means for workers wages- including minimum wage workers By Nathan Newman - (See previous for link.) According to the Department of Labor: Real average weekly earnings fell by 0.9 percent from May to June...from June 2007 to June 2008...[a]fter deflation by the CPI-W, average weekly earnings decreased by 2.4 percent. Most workers are seeing a drop in real wages, but in that they are just joining the fate of lower-income workers who have long seen their wages dropping in the face of inflation. For those making minimum wage, this month officially marked another increase in the federal minimum wage, up to $6.55 per hour. Yet, adjusted for inflation, that amount is below what the minimum wage was in 1999. And with inflation increasing, even when the minimum wage goes to $.7.25 next year, it will be lower in value adjusted for inflation than when the minimum wage was raised to $5.15 per hour in 1997.

Henry Ruark July 16, 2008 6:26 pm (Pacific time)

Dan et al:
By happy chance found this "see with own eyes" which covers the remaining remnants of the Reagan myth very well, so felt had to share with you and others:
www.truthdig.com/report

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 9:30 am (Pacific time)

(Sorry-inadvertent transmission without link.) Here's link to minimum wage "see with own eyes: www.ourfuture.org/progressive-opinion/what-todays-economy-means-workers-wages

Henry Ruark July 17, 2008 8:14 am (Pacific time)

Dan et al: Having perpetrated somewhat rambling description of what we must do to remediate education, let me translate into words from one of largest publishing houses for content materials. "Empowering Online Learning is an essential resource for anyone designing or facilitating online learning. It introduces an easy, practical model (read, reflect, display, and do) that will illustrate to online educators how to deliver content in ways that benefit all types of learners (visual, auditory, observational, and kinesthetic) from a wide variety of backgrounds and skill levels." Albeit describing a seminal book-series, these clear words outline precisely what media producers must do via the tested systems-approach which has given us so much already in the worlds of technology. Dan, hope this helps to illuminate my point, and aid others in understanding what many educators now know, all too painfully, what MUST begin to happen, rapidly, to prepare this nation for the demnds of the 21st Century, already poised to overwhelm us all.

Henry Ruark July 16, 2008 6:08 pm (Pacific time)

Dan et al: You wrote: "(due to crappy education)." Must agree some of system has thoroughly devolved from what it once was, and must be again for 21st Century, with added demands, too. But that makes my point re societal choices.No reasonably thoughtful person in touch with schools (as on boards providing local insights) will question need for funding to be different and often larger than currently society allows. But given 1/10th of costs of "wasting wars", applied across the board nationally, one can guarantee great improvement, with one major need better preparation of teachers, more realistic payments, stronger local control over what is now better than most nations, and first and foremost, upgrading to 21st Century needs of what and how we teach the kids...as in much greater usage of real technology and learning media content built by system and performance standards. Can document every damned bit of this, and have been doing so for 30 years, including some twenty national survey reports in two major educational media magazines. Any ideas here, friend Dan ? Curriculum reform demands the professional touch, but often starts with insights from both parents and other citizens.

Henry Ruark July 16, 2008 3:48 pm (Pacific time)

Dan et al: As "old teacher" --all too true, 5th/6th grade-- appreciate your arithmetic. BUT that ain't the problem, which is that this society must now make solid, sensible, rational and reasonable choices and fund what it so chooses. DO we continue to allow the "wasting wars" and similar stupidities which steal our substance for what should be solutions for our own problems at home --OR do we force the Congress to cut off its now nearly complete surrender for more corporate campaign contributions (and "white envelopes, too, as I know from personal experience) ? IF you have ideas, concepts, or any other tool for such sensible effort, with which I think you MUST agree, lay 'em out right here, and we will work together to build the support so desperately needed. Fist step, for me, is the absolutely required cleansing action of impeachment, to set the unavoidable and surely commanding precedent for how this nation Constitutionally deals with those who betray their election AND the document itself. Do YOU agree ? OR do you propose we bander, pander and whine-some-more before we DO something ? IF you have "something" other than cleansing process, applied wherever and as deeply as needed, let's hear it... Thank you for your participation, really "deeply appreciated"...we need more cogitating and then rebelling, and I hope you will continue to assist in that effort.

Dan July 16, 2008 6:18 am (Pacific time)

Henry, if you're 90, you've 'invested' in SS every year since it's inception (or close to it). This year, 2008, you will draw more from SS than you put in in any two years of your working life. If two hundred persons contribute to pay the care and living expenses of one hundred persons for one year, who will pay for the 200? 400? And who will pay for the 400? 800? And where do we find those 800 persons with our population aging and being less productive (due to crappy education). And where tdo we find those 800 persons when the jobs are being moved outside the U.S.? Henry, you may resent being identified as a little piggy, but I used that term in lieu of 'welfare' recipient. And if you think the scheme described above is not a ponzi scheme, I have multiple bridges in Manhattan to sell you! Wake up man!! Every day we lose 200 WW2 soldiers and gain 300 'welfare' (SS) recipients, while only adding 124 'welfare' (SS) payers. Let's face it - YOU GOT YOURS, so age-based welfare is Goooood. Ask my 33 year old son how HE feels about paying for YOUR retirement. Sooooeeeeee...

Janet July 16, 2008 12:50 am (Pacific time)

It is an absolute disgrace. The young people paying in today will take care of as many old people as they can.... Unfortunately, no one will take care of them. There in lies the rub

Henry Ruark July 15, 2008 5:00 pm (Pacific time)

Dan et al: DO believe I speak for many when I resent your "little piggie" characterization, even when you include yourself. Every life experience is different; some make it big enough for retirement, some do not; t'was ever thus, will probably never change. Depends on career decisions and luck, to very large extent for each. I chose education despite its known low-pay, and added journalism to survive. When I came to OregonEdDept. had refused $5,00o more annually in marketing for a national media concern; never regretted that choice. Then did mine own consultancy for ten years in toughest market, Chicago. Still found myself reduced to near start-over when was six-yr. nurse/caretake for wife with Altheimer's,in our '70s. SO did start-over, and now very thankful also for S/S. I ain't no little piggie, thank you very much, but at 90,with prolonged "retirement" and woeful state of economy, find myself along with some millions of others extremely thankful for society which sees fit to preserve, protect and help prolong life for such as us... OR do you prefer we cash in and go away, the earlier the better ? If so, further age may bring you different attitude, too. Hope your private investment pans out for you, and that you did not place assets in any of that sub-prime mortgage/market disaster sold so progressively to so many...that's where the real failures in this society are occurrimg, not in rational and well-supported federal programs like S/S, easily rescued for many decades by a few weeks of Iraq war-costs... which was preemptive choice, when dollars so wasted on war might well have been Congress' directed to many other uses.

Dan July 15, 2008 7:17 am (Pacific time)

And the federal government (we) can go on receiving (increasing) benefits until when? At what point do we admit that Social Security is nothing more than age-based welfare? As I approach Social Security eligibility, yes, I'm glad it's there and yes, it's a part of my retirement funding plan. But the fact is that no one living today or for several years past (if ever) has put as much into Social Security as they have or will withdraw. The only time Social Security comes out on the left side of the ledger is when a contributor dies without eligible heirs. FDR was trying to recoup us from a depression the likes of which had never been seen. When that depression ended, Social Security should have been tapered off to remain financially solvent. But because the opposite was done (the program was expanded and new sub-programs were started), it became a government operated ponzi scheme. I'm not in favor of investing SS funds in the stock market, but having people start to take responsibility for their SS accounts is a start towards weaning us little piggies off the government teat. And none too soon, IMHO.

[Return to Top]

Letter to the Editor Suggests McCain's Tactics Would Devastate Social Security

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News