Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
President Obama’s Strong Case Against the Corporate Push to Gut Social Security
By: RmuseFeb. 5th, 2013more from Rmuse
In a representative democracy like America, a majority of the population chooses a leader to represent their best interests in negotiations with a hostile opposition party, and they can be likened to a labor representative negotiating for wages, working conditions, and benefits in a labor dispute, but a labor representative’s influence is limited when compared to those who hold real power, the business owners. Today, the American people’s representative, President Obama, meets with business owners who hold enormous power and wield influence over Republicans who control the fate of American workers, and before the meeting even begins, a gang of CEOs laid out an agenda that portends diminished benefits for America’s workforce. In his Inaugural Address, the President assured the people he will fight to preserve their retirement investment, and with overwhelming support from the people, he has the ability to make a strong case against the CEOs proposals.
President Obama meets with chief executives from 12 companies today to discuss immigration and deficit reduction. The CEO list features Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein, Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer, Willard Romney’s associate Arne Sorenson of Marriott Intl, Jeff Smisek of United Continental Holdings, and Klaus Kleinfeld of Alcoa Inc, as well as seven other of the nation’s ruling oligarchy. A White House official said “The president will continue his engagement with outside leaders on a number of issues – including his efforts to achieve balanced deficit reduction,” but the gang of 12 have their own agenda, and solid support from the GOP, that is irrelevant to deficit reduction and everything to do with enriching the financial sector and eroding the worker-funded retirement and healthcare system.
Like a labor negotiation, the people overwhelmingly voiced their demands to preserve Social Security that includes increased benefits, eliminating the cap on high income earners, retire at 62, increase the cost of living allowance (COLA), and increase the payroll tax deduction to ensure they are paying for their demands. The CEOs ultimatum is raising the retirement age to 70, reducing Social Security benefits, cutting COLA, and quickly moving both worker-funded retirement programs (Social Security and Medicare) into the private financial sector as the be all, end all, to reduce the nation’s deficit. President Obama will listen carefully to the CEO demands and consider how the people will respond, but according to the latest poll by the nonpartisan National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI), there could not possibly be a sharper contrast between what Americans say they want and changes being proposed by the nation’s corporate leaders and their legislative arm the Republican Party.
The NASI survey revealed that large majorities of Americans (Republicans and Democrats) overwhelmingly want to increase payroll taxes and increase Social Security’s benefits, and agreed on ways to strengthen Social Security — without cutting benefits. In fact, 84% of the people believe current Social Security benefits do not provide enough income for retirees, and 82% agree it is critical to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans. The survey also showed that 71% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats agree that increasing Social Security taxes for wealthiest 5% of Americans by eliminating the income cap is critical to preserve Social Security. One hopes that the President, Democrats, and especially Republican “entitlement” fetishists comprehend that bipartisan desire to sustain and grow Social Security is real, and that the President conveys that message to the 12 disciples of the post-Reagan economic policies that have decimated American workers over the past thirty years.
The CEOs however, are ill-inclined to acquiesce to the will of the people, or their needs, and with no real stake in the deficit, or the nation’s spending (lowest in 60 years), will attempt to control the narrative to get their hands on Americans’ retirement savings (Social Security & Medicare) by parroting the demise of the government program by pushing benefit cuts and raising the retirement age to advance their privatization scam they claim reduces the deficit and brings government spending under control; their control. Obviously, the CEOs and their GOP cohort promote Social Security’s near-term insolvency to garner support for benefit cuts, raising the retirement age, and privatization, and it informs their interest is not the deficit, the program’s fiscal health, or spending that have no effect on the CEOs, but moving all Americans’ retirement investments into their corporate ledgers does.
Social Security and Medicare belong to the American people, and since CEOs have no stake in either, cutting benefits, requiring people to work longer, and leaving retirees in the lurch without healthcare for five years is of no consequence to them. However, they will dictate to President Obama that people work longer and are denied their entire working lives’ investment for 5 years to leave them broke, broken and, if they can abscond with the people’s retirement by way of privatization, an early death. Make no mistake, the CEO mindset has no regard for the American people, and they believe they are the government and Social Security already belongs to them. Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein revealed as much two months ago when he said cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age was mandatory because “we cannot afford them” and “that they (the people) have to start making sacrifices to cut our spending” and the country’s deficit. Blankfein is irrelevant to Social Security spending, and he has no stake in its affordability, but he does want to get his dirty hands on Americans’ retirement investment; that is his only interest.
One understands the President recruiting leading CEOs to pressure Republicans during the fiscal cliff crisis, but bringing them in to discuss deficit reduction when their entire interest is “harvesting” working people’s retirement is curious. The people have spoken through the NASI survey, and their demands speak volumes about preserving and strengthening Social Security without benefit cuts or raising the retirement age that entails CEO strategy to deprive the people and privatize the program.
The people chose President Obama as their representative to fight for their interests, and if they wanted a CEO advocate, Willard Romney would be handing the Social Security Trust to Goldman Sachs. The CEOs are deluded if they believe the President is Willard Romney. Perhaps the corporate world failed to get the message Americans rejected Republican’s thirty year assault on their economic health in November, or that President Obama rejected deficit reduction based on privatizing Americans’ retirement income. The President has proven to be a master at manipulating Republicans to advance his agenda, and with near universal support for strengthening and preserving the most popular New Deal program in American history, there is little doubt 12 CEOs will prove any different.
Human beings are unique in their ability to learn because they can transfer knowledge from one person to ...
Republicans keep nattering on about how we can fix the deficit by attacking so called "entitlements" of ...
When Republicans campaigned for the midterm elections they promised to address the budget deficit, creat ...
The history of credit probably goes back to the first concept of ownership that led to the practice of b ...
After the White House took Social Security off the fiscal cliff negotiating table, Sen. Bernie Sanders a ...
David Feaker
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
I can’t believe they think they will get actual money to invest (gamble) All they will get is a bunch of IOU’s as the trust fund has been raided dry and all new incoming money is spent before it even makes it into the trust fund. These guys should be forced to live on Soc. Sec. or Disability as I do, and throw a chronic disease in on top of it to see if they can afford to live. My first month of med’s put me in the doughnut hole in Jan. My pain med’s cost is $650 this month alone, where do I get that money from? It is sad being disabled and not being able to afford ones med’s and to be told I make to much on disability for any extra help, yet they want to cut my check and benefits. This will be shown as a sad pathetic time for us in the history books when the richest nation in the world can’t take care of the old, poor and disabled people
Gloria
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Leave SS alone, People have work hard over the years to have that money for when they retire. It seems the people who want it cut, taken away or what ever are the ones who DO NOT need it in the first place. All people should be paying there fair share in taxes. Why is I can not afford health insurance? Let the CEO’s of big companies, Governors, Sentors etc live on what ave people live on. Cut there pay checks. Leave mine alone and that includes SS. Mr President, I worked to hard to have nothing.
Tom
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Shame,
First of all the president won a majority of less than half the eligible voting population shame on us. But it says much about the feeling of disillusionment with politics in our country. Many feel it is more about the power and re-election than “for the people”. In the past we looked to our representatives for honest adult leadership but have seen little. “Hands off Social Security” where was the outrage when the real actual billions in surplus was raided under LBJ to be replaced with IOU’s which will be demanding payments out of current revenue streams rather than real reserves. Where was the concern for all those who planned for retirement when the age was increased, the funds were made taxable (means testing), and COLA was adjusted to generally reduce the annual increase especially in those areas of most concern to retirees. What we have is a Senator from NY saying Social Security has never contributed to the deficit I beg to differ it was used to hide deficit spending. The same Senator pontificated on how would you like to have had your money in the market rather than in the Social Security system, referring to the 2008 downturn when factually over a thirty year work history alone the returns on equivalent deposits in even an S&P index fund would have resulted in a much greater benefit and if the individual had been sensible and had a higher proportion of bonds in his portfolio as he approached retirement the returns would have been extraordinary. Can we really trust the government with our “trust” fund? Why are so many individuals around the country believe they will never see or have a greatly reduced benefit. Think about what is currently being said if you have worked hard and been successful we are going to take away what was promised to you so long ago. How do you plan for the future in an environment like that.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 6:11 pm
If you think I would trust my SS to wall street then you are out of your mind.BTW was you crowing about how many people voted when raygun got less than 30% of eligble voters?
RMuse
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 6:29 pm
Tom – For the ten-thousandth time, by statute, the Social Security Trust is forbidden to take from, or add, one penny to the deficit. Did you understand that? FORBIDDEN by STATUTE – That is what precisely why Social Security was designated a “TRUST,” to protect it.
If you insist on repeating a favourite conservative canard, pick one that is not easily refuted.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 6:51 pm
Where were you when Bush was raiding SS?
SS is solvent till 2042. Get over yourself.
ALL president win with less then half the voting public voting.