Tweet
Social Security Works spoke to several conservatives at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this past Friday, who were none too pleased to hear Mitt Romney he plans to cut Social Security and Medicare.
To the right is a video Social Security Works put together contrasting Romney’s statements on Social Security and Medicare in his speech at CPAC with the reactions of some CPAC attendees.
It is no surprise that I spoke with many CPAC attendees, who either agreed with Romney, or had more extreme positions. But in addition to the people we included in the video, I spoke with several more conservative activists, who we did not have the space to feature, but also opposed the idea of cutting benefits.
A few things stood out to me in my conversations with CPAC attendees, whether they took issue with Romney’s remarks or not:
• There are faces behind the poll numbers. While I had seen the poll numbers showing widespread Republican opposition to Social Security cuts before CPAC–the latest National Journal poll shows 77 percent of the country, presumably including many Republicans, opposed to cuts–I had to see it to believe it.
• A “grand bargain” for the elites only. All year long, proponents of a “balanced” deficit reduction package that includes Social Security cuts have sold it as a measure that will win the President political support from moderate Republican and independent voters. But my experience led me to believe that cutting Social Security seems to appeal more to elites and their donors in both parties, rather than rank-and-file voters.
• Insurance not welfare. Even the CPAC attendees I spoke to who favored cutting Social Security and Medicare, agreed that Social Security was insurance, not welfare. For conservatives who malign “government” in the abstract, and consider busting welfare cheats a top national priority, this is the highest compliment. We make fun of Tea Party activists for sporting signs saying, “Get your government hands off my Social Security and Medicare.” But conservatives’ support for Social Security speaks more to the political intelligence with which these programs were created than it does to conservatives’ selfishness or hypocrisy. Social Security’s character as a self-funded earned benefit plan that is universal, not means-tested, has spared it the scorn that other means-tested government programs elicit. This is one reason we should be wary of proposals to means-test Social Security and Medicare.
• Denial. Several interviewees simply refused to believe that Mitt Romney had proposed cutting Social Security or Medicare. Call it a case of political cognitive dissonance.
• Myths and misinformation. Many conservatives I spoke to were beholden to the same myths about Social Security that have resonated with the broader American public. This is often what led them to reconcile their appreciation of the program with support for cuts:
◊ Social Security is “broke.” Many CPAC attendees endorsed benefit cuts reluctantly, but had exaggerated views of the program’s funding gap, calling the program “broke” and “bankrupt”
◊ Congress raided or spent the money in the trust fund. For many people, Social Security is a perfect program, but Congress spent its surplus on frivolous government expenditures
◊ President Obama turned Social Security into welfare. According to these people, Social Security was once a quintessentially American earned insurance program, but in recent years, Congress and President Obama have expanded into a wasteful welfare program.
In reality, Social Security is facing a modest funding gap, not “going bankrupt;” its $2.7 trillion surplus is invested in United States Treasury bonds that cannot be “spent” by Congress; and President Obama has done nothing to change Social Security.
As for Romney’s proposals, Social Security Works has made a fact sheet chronicling his statements on Social Security prior to CPAC. (Spoiler alert: Romney has called Social Security a fraud in the past.)
What made Romney’s CPAC speech unique was that Romney articulated specific policies he would pursue rather than discuss them vaguely as he has in the past. Let’s focus on two key points:
Raise the Retirement Age
Romney said: “We will slowly and gradually raise the retirement age for Social Security.”
This is bad policy because:
• Raising the retirement age to 69 is a 13% benefit cut at whatever age you claim benefits. Even if you delay retirement to age 69 your benefit would be 13-16% less. (See chart here.)
• Many older workers cannot find work or cannot work after age 67, let alone age 69. Raising the retirement age greatly disadvantages lower-wage and minority workers, who, on average, have seen little or no increase in life expectancy, suffer from work-limiting health problems, and work in physically demanding jobs.
Opposes Making the Rich Pay Their Fair Share
Romney said: “Tax hikes are off the table.”
This is bad policy because:
• The vast majority of Americans must make payroll tax contributions on all of their wages, millionaires and billionaires like Mitt Romney only do so on the first $110,100 of their earnings.
• Scrapping the cap so that all earnings are subject to the payroll tax would close Social Security’s entire projected 75-year funding gap.
While President Obama has yet to draw any lines in the sand for bipartisan reform efforts, Romney has already precluded revenue increases from the discussion. Unless President Obama hardens his negotiating position, the price of keeping Social Security reform bipartisan could be very high.
17 Comments
Spot on post-
Obama planting “means test is reasonable” nonsense – as in the Washington Post Fred Hiatt piece – is unfortunately what I expect from Obama.
Their is a tiny savings and a massive change in the character of SS if the why give millionaires Social Security canard is allow to go unchallenged. We know how hard they have worked to move the medis word for that Social Security check from Social insurance BENEFIT to GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENT. The next step, to calling it welfare, only requires the means test.
Medicare already has two tier Part B premium that others say make it welfare – but that can be brushed off as just a progressive approach. Once benefits are means tested, we will have welfare and the cutting of benefits will begin because “we just can afford that level of welfare” (as was said by Simpson-Bowles, with nodded agreement by Obama, and as is now the cry of the Germans as they destroy Greece to help their banks).
I thought this guy WANTED to be president. He has been shooting himself foot ala rick Perry for three weeks now. so much so that Rick Santorum (yes THAT Rick Santorum) has overtaken him in the polls in Michigan and Ohio. WTF????
Me and my baby-boomers are the largest voting segment in the country right now. Mitt, don’t fuck with our SS and medicare.
Means testing is another trap that Obama will allow himself the honor of falling into. Like the so called paycheck tax cut that is just another game to de-fund SSI. The klepocrats and their bosses just can’t keep their grubby thieving hands off SSI. Its such a ripe prize to hand over to the Wall st. privateers that are their paymasters, they’re obsessed with grabbing it. They should haul down the Stars and Stripes off Capitol Hill already and raise the Jolly Roger and move on. The Republic is DEAD , the Constitution is just a god damn piece of mildewing paper and Long Live the Empire of Capital!!
Could someone explain the 13%-16% reduction in benefits scenario for me? Is this actually a proposed reduction in the monthly SS benefit or is it the total benefit decrease over a beneficiary’s lifetime broken down to a monthly amount for purposes of illustration? Not nitpicking; really don’t understand.
Romney is counting on our fading memory this fall.
5. HEALTH CARE
A. Raise the Medicare entitlement fee to 2% of total income including wages, salaries, bonuses, interest, dividends, capital gains and other forms of income. Those paying more than $2,000.00 will receive a tax deduction.
B. Allow Federal government to negotiate with PHARMA industry to lower drug prices.
C. Allow VA Hospitals to care for low income non-veterans.
D. Carry out the Medicare/Medicaid cost reductions mandated by the Affordable health Care Act so that the growth can be slowed. Putting these provisions into action fully and as soon as possible is the best way to reign in spending.
E. Allow Medicare to bundle payments for several standard procedures nationwide phase in over the next four years payments for all procedures and primary care completely replacing ‘fee-for-service’.
F. Implement competitive bidding for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, laboratory tests, pharmaceutical and other medical supplies.
G. Require electronic eligibility, claims processing and payment as well as centralized physician credentialing.
H. Do not pay extra for technologies that are more expensive but no more effective than other available technologies.
I. Allow all citizens a under the age of 60 a choice between a Medicare Public Option or private health insurance. All over 60 would receive Medicare.
Anybody with three missing toes sticks out in the crowd.
Don’t worry about Mitt destroying Social Security and Medicare, Obama and the Democrats will do so with impunity. The payroll tax “holiday” isn’t designed to help the working poor or middle class. It’s a stealth defunding of Social Security in “populist” guise.
SOCIAL SECURITY Change the pay roll tax by reducing it from 6 to 5 per cent on the first $100,000 which would be matched by the employer then a graduated upward tax on all earnings (gross income) above that amount. Such a tax could look something like this:
The first $100,000 5%
$100K – 1M +1%
$1M – 5M +2%
$5M – & above +3%
Everything paid above the first $5,000 would be a tax deduction. In other words a person making one million dollars would pay $5,000 on the first $100,000 and $9,000 on the remaining $900,000 for a total of $14,000. Someone fortunate enough to be making $10,000,000 would pay $5,000 plus $9,000 plus $80,000 or 2% on the next $4M and $150,000 or
3% on the final $5M for a total of $244,000 or 2.44% of earnings of which $239,000 would be tax deductable.
Mitt does not appear to have very good advisors because this plan to cut Medicare is political suicide. All those wingnut wrinklies are already using Medicare and SS just like me. I think he just cut himself off at the knees.
The sad thing here is the federal govt does not need to do a thing to either SS or medicare. Neither program is going bust and it is, as a matter of fact, impossible to do so. The federal government can always pay any debt denominated in its own currency (the dollar). If the fund is in danger of running out, then the government can pay into it. To the extent taxes are needed at all it should come from the general fund.
But it would be a really good idea to have medicare for all. That I agree with.
Not only suicide but stoopid. (geez wish I could spell.)
They can only defund the program at the polling place, no other way. the fund, in reality, is meaningless. The federal govt can always at all times “afford” to pay it, whether or not there is a single dollar in the “fund”.
And it is stoopid.
IMO, definately lost a toe. Santorum is catching and passing him in Mich and Ohio and gaining in AZ.
Santorum…….can you believe it???? I had NO idea that the anti-Romney sentiment was THAT desperate. What if Gary Busey was the only GOP candidate left???
I wish I could take the credit for this summation, but I found it elsewhere on the Internet:
“Entitlement?
I PAID cash for my Social Security insurance! Our benefits aren’t some kind of charity or handout!
Congressional benefits–premium federal health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days–now THAT’S welfare!
And they have the nerve to call my retirement an entitlement!
REPOST IF YOU ARE SICK OF THEIR CRAP.”
Yep, both Democrats and Republicans are committed to destroying Social Security and Medicare. That’s why there are Socialists, Greens, the Justice Party, and other leftist alternatives.