Sibby Online

Social Security going to illegals

From WorldNetDaily:

An organization of retirees has announced the release, after three years of arguments and a Freedom of Information request, by the Social Security Administration of a copy of the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement.

The TREA Senior Citizens League said the document reveals what was expected, a huge threat to the future of Social Security, because any Mexican worker who has as little as 18 months of employment history in the United States could end up qualifying for some Social Security retirement benefits.

Here are some interesting details:

For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under the cross-country agreements, workers can combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits in the U.S.

The agreements generally provide that workers need only 18 months of coverage in the U.S. to qualify.

However, the league said Mexico's retirement system is "radically" different from other nations, the group said. "There, only 40 percent of the non-government workers participate in the system, as opposed to 96 percent of America's non-government workers. Additionally, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower-income workers get back much more than they paid into the system. But in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus interest."

And the Democrats want to make those who are getting ripped off already to fund the retirement of illegals by raising the ceiling on taxable amounts. Not exactly an example of economic freedom.

Democrats are not pro-choice

Star Parker has a must read column on how the Democrats got away with not allowing Americans to choose where to put their mandatory Social Security retirement funds. Here is the ending:

When President Bush proposed changing the program to one of ownership and private accounts, the Democratic Party launched major league into the politics of cynicism. The message that working Americans heard was that they would be kicked off a government program guaranteeing them a payment at retirement in exchange for taking their money and investing it in the stock market.

Is it any wonder that many dived for cover?

I call this the politics of cynicism because there is not a single Democratic senator or congressman who would purchase an insurance policy with the type of legal and economic realities of Social Security. Shut the door and one by one they know the truth.

The Democrats' campaign to "save Social Security" has really been a campaign to save their own butts.

To have endorsed the president's reform would have been an endorsement of a fundamental move away from welfare-state politics that has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party.

Now, playing on fears and not the real interests of working Americans, and the inability of Republicans to stick to and sell their message, the Democrats have won.

The real victims are the low and middle income Americans whose hard-earned money is being sucked into this black hole that will only get deeper and blacker. This is happening while Democrats bewail wage and wealth stagnation at the lower end of our income spectrum.

Is a Republican White House, for fear that it will look like it did nothing on Social Security, about to join Democrats in the ranks of the politics of cynicism?

The Reagan era is still alive for this writer. Let's hope it's still alive in the Bush White House.

Krugman intellectually dishonest

From Social Security Choice:

Paul Krugman's relentless and dishonest opposition to Social Security reform is even beginning to disgust fellow liberals. Here's liberal Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein in an online q-and-a:

Fairfax, VA: Do you agree with Paul Krugman's assertion that the President's recent plan to cut social security benefits actually falls mostly on the middle class and not the wealthiest?

Steven Pearlstein: No, it was very intellectually dishonest. All he was really saying is that, for rich people, Social Security benefits are a small part of their post retirement income. In truth, any cut in benefit will fall mostly on the middle class because the middle class gets most of the benefits. Its sophistry, really. And like the Dems, Krugman assumes in his analysis that the money will be there to pay 100 percent of future benefits, which cannot be assumed. That's why we're having this conversation in the first place. I have in front of me an analsys which suggests that the decline in the replacement rate for a typical American household under "progressive" indexation will be about the same as the decline in replacement rate if nothing is done to Social Security and benefits increases are "cut" simply to reflect the amount of money available.

And it's not just Krugman. Here's a Pearlstein column telling the Democrats that they'd better come up with something better to say on Social Security than "no."

Social Security is a case in point. By staying unified, Democrats have pushed back an attempt to partially privatize a government social program that, more than any other, defines what they are about. They also got the president to agree to increase the amount of income subject to the payroll tax as well as a progressive scheme for slowing the growth in future benefits.

You might think, therefore, that this would be the ideal time for a minority party to take the lead with its own plan to ensure solvency of this popular program, based on those and other progressive principles. Guess again. The Washington Democrats have decided, instead, to press their advantage by demanding that the president agree to trade all consideration of private accounts, as well as his income tax cuts, plus one Supreme Court justice to be named later, before they will even pull up to the negotiating table. Apparently, they'd rather have an issue to demagogue than actually rescue a vital program.

Clear Cut Kidder busted

The Clear Cut Kidder continues to spread the Democrats’ talking lying points on Social Security. The lies have gotten so bad that the Clear Cut Kidder has just undone himself. Here is an excerpt from his most recent post of lies:

There is one way to avoid the President’s proposed cut: Take some of your guaranteed benefit and gamble it in the stock market.

Again the lie of "guaranteed benefits" is used to con us into believing that current benefits levels will be available in the future. Jon Schaff has posted this excerpt form a Robert C. Pozen column:

Let us take as an example a medium-wage worker who will earn $47,000 in 2012 when progressive indexing will first be implemented ($36,500 in 2005). The critics have already proclaimed that such a worker retiring in 2045 at age 65 would receive 16% less under progressive indexing than scheduled benefits--$16,417 rather than $19,544 per year. Is this reduction from the schedule a "benefit cut"? If Congress does not enact Social Security reform, the system will default in 2041 and benefit levels will automatically be reduced by roughly 27% for all workers by 2045. So judged relative to payable benefits, the $16,417 received by the median-wage worker in 2045 would actually be an increase in benefits. That sum represents $2,150 more in Social Security benefits than the $14,267 that the system can afford to pay in 2045 absent major reforms.

Benefits that will be reduced by 27% under the Democrats do-nothing-plan are not "guaranteed benefits". The President’s progressive indexing plan lowers that impact to the middle class, eliminates it for the poor, and allows the wealthy to take the full hit. Calling benefits that will be reduced by 27% "guaranteed benefits" is an outright lie by the Democrats.

But wait...there is more. Keep in mind what the Clear Cut Kidder said about the dangers of gambling in the stock market as he spins this piece of BS:

But back to how the rich are going to avoid a benefit cut and how the bulk of cuts are going to be borne by the middle class. There is one assumption that must be made to understand this: The lower your income, the more likely you are to rely on Social Security rather than private savings for your retirement security. I say this because the more you earn, the more ability you have to save (in total and as a percentage) and the more risk you are willing to bear. There are of course, many factors that go into this, but I think what I’m saying is a reasonable assumption.

What is going to happen under "progressive" indexing is the wealthiest among us are going to be those most willing to remove themselves from the Social Security system and place their money in Bush’s privatization accounts. When a high earner is willing to take money out of the guaranteed system and take on risk in the stock market, etc., they are able to avoid the benefit cuts that "progressive" indexing calls for.

Did you get that, the Clear Cut Kidder just said that private accounts allow us to avoid the benefits cuts, that he wrongly said were guaranteed. By investing in the stock market through private accounts, we can avoid the 27% in benefits cuts that will be caused by the decreasing ratio of workers to retirees. The Clear Cut Kidder just undone himself with his pack of lies.

The liar is trying to have the argument both ways. The stock market  is a bad idea but then it will provide the extra return needed to overcome the upcoming 27% Social Security benefit cut. Why not just allow us to make the decision?

Clear Cut Kidder lies again

Chad Schuldt, former paid Daschle campaign staffer, has been continously lying about the so-called guaranteed benefits of Social Security on his web site and in the Argus Leader. Then he falsely accused John Thune of stealing those benefits. Now today he is supporting the lies with lies from Paul Krugman. Here is a Don Luskin post titled "Lies upon lies upon lies" regarding the Krugman NYT propaganda piece that Schuldt uses to support his position:

Paul Krugman's New York Times column today terribly distorts the already terribly distorted meaning of a quotation from Jason Furman, liberal economist at the liberal think tank The Center on Budget Policies and Priorities. Krugman tries to give the impression that "progressive price indexing" of Social Security benefits -- which President Bush proposed in his press conference last week -- would severely reduce benefits for the middle class. He quotes Furman thus:

"For millions of workers," Mr. Furman writes, "the amount of the monthly Social Security check would be at or near zero."

What Furman actually wrote, however, was quite different. Furman's statement depended on not just considering progressive price indexing of benefits, but also the fact that workers would (1) voluntarily reduce their standard benefits in exchange for likely greater benefits from personal accounts; and (2) pay their Medicare premiums by deduction from their Social Security checks. Here is what Furman wrote:

For many middle-income workers, Medicare premiums would consume most or all of the very small monthly Social Security benefit that would remain under the combination of progressive price indexing and "carve-out" private accounts. Social Security checks for millions of ordinary American workers thus would be close to or at zero.

Krugman took Furman's quote wildly out of context to make it seem as though progressive indexing alone would reduce the Social Security check. But Furman's original quote is deceptive in its own way. First, it may nominally reduce the amount of a check to have a payment for Medicare (or anything else) deducted from it, but that doesn't reduce its value. And second, Furman is falsely setting the post-retirement benefits resulting from personal account values at zero; in fact, those would be paid out each month too, no doubt as part of the Social Security check.

The Times yesterday took another subtle opportunity to misquote CBPP -- its most reliable and frequently cited source of left-leaning economic analysis. In a front-pager yesterday -- "Social Security: Help for the Poor or Help for All?" -- a graphic showing the purported reduction for various categories of wage earners caused by progressive indexing cites both the Social Security Administration and CBPP as its source. In reality the SSA has never published one iota of the information contained in this graphic; its entire content comes from CBPP, which itself claims that it developed its analysis based on SSA figures. But isn't it so very much more credible for the "paper of record" to pretend it is using government statistics, rather than mere analysis from a left-leaning lie factory?

Dems out of line on protest

From today’s Mitchell Daily Republic editorial:

Sen. John Thune is receiving all kinds of advice on Social Security these days - and very little of it is constructive.

Most of the comments fit one description: Don’t change Social Security.

Former state lawmaker John McIntyre, Sioux Falls, exemplifies those who oppose any private accounts for Social Security - and a surprisingly cavalier attitude about the seriousness of the situation. McIntyre was quoted in an Associated Press story Wednesday [see this post] as saying, "We’d like to have the facts. And the facts we see is that Social Security is not in crisis."

Not today, it isn’t.

And not tomorrow, either.

But to say that Social Security doesn’t face a looming crisis is to ignore the facts. In 15 to 17 years, more money will be paid out of the system than is contributed through taxation. Although there are differing estimates as to exactly when this will occur, the stark truth is that as more people retire and the ratio grows of those taking out compared to those paying in, the integrity of the system will be compromised.

What we’re seeing from many quarters is a reaction against change, but with no proposals to fix the problem.

For those who are 73, as McIntyre is, Social Security remains a nice safety net. But for those "Baby Boomers" who are 20 years younger, the Social Security Trust Fund no longer holds the guarantee that McIntyre enjoys. The scenario worsens for the children of the "Boomers."

"…the Social Security Trust Fund no longer holds the guarantee that McIntyre enjoys"…at least one paper in the State recognizes the Democrat’s lie that the Social Security benefits are guaranteed.

SD MSM promote Democrat’s lies

[UPDATE: Tonight's post will be titled, "Roger Andal and the SD MSM"]

As SDP has already reported, South Dakotans United To Protect Social Security is a disguised group of Daschle campaign staff (including manager Steve Hildebrand) who are spreading the Democrat’s lies about Presidents Bush’s plan to give Americans the freedom to chose to take more control and ownership over some of their payroll taxes.

The South Dakota MSM is falling all over themselves as they report on this group’s protest in front of John Thune’s Sioux Falls office:

As Congress took up President Bush's request to draft Social Security legislation Tuesday, people against the proposed changes protested in front of Sen. John Thune's downtown Sioux Falls office.

Note the lead sentence did not provide exactly who was behind the protest. The next sentence provides a big lie:

They carried yellow printed signs that said, "Hands Off My Social Security," and handmade signs such as, "Don't Piratize Social Security."

President Bush’s plan is voluntary. So "Hands Off My Social Security" is a lie. If you want to stay with the current plan you can. A KELO report includs more Democrat lies:

Retiree John McIntyre says, "The Bush privatization plan takes away some of the guaranteed stability that the guaranteed Social Security benefit now have, up to 45% of our guaranteed benefits will be lost under their so called Bush plan. "

Even those years away from retirement, piped in. College Student Dylan Andersen says, "This issue is something that affects everyone who's a student right now because soon they're entering the work force and the money they're paying in is hopefully going to support them when they retire."

Again, the benefits are not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 1960. And no...what you are paying in today will not be there to support you when you retire. What you are paying today is going to current retirees and soon to retire workers. As abortion and condoms reduce the ratio of workers to retires, future benefits are projected to drop by 27% by the time people like Dylan Andersen retires. The benefits are not guaranteed and instead are at risk if nothing is done. These people should be laying off the Kool Aid. Andersen goes on to show his hypocrisy:

Andersen says his generation has as much at stake as current retirees. Andersen is already investing for his own retirement in a 401K. He agrees changes need to be made, but doesn't think private accounts are the way to save the system.

"There are a lot of different options that will work that can be implemented with lower costs without taking away benefits to current recipients of Social Security," says Andersen.

Bush plan is to give the poor the same opportunity that those who can afford to invest in 401K are enjoying. The Democrats want to keep the poor poor. Also, the President’s plan does not affect current retirees. How pathetic it is for Democrats to make up lies to crate fear in the hearts of South Dakota seniors.

SDP also notes these Democrats allied with the radical Lyndon LaRouche followers:

The Daschle hate machine, led by Daschle's former campaign manager and former staffer Jeremy Funk (the one who promotes "F--k John Thune" t-shirts and writes about how he wants to "rip Thune's n--- off" on his website) was joined in protest today in Sioux Falls by members of the Lyndon LaRouche party (who were busy handing out flyers about how Jewish bankers were going to take over the world and are also fearful of black helicopters signaling the apocalypse).

As I reported in March, the LaRouche folks joined Tim Johnson in Mitchell to help spread the lies and propaganda about the President’s plan to restore freedom in America.

The AP report is not only on the front page of today’s Mitchell paper, it can be also found at KOTA , the Yankton Daily Press, and of course at the Argus Leader. The South Dakota MSM has no problem promoting Democrat lies as "news"...without informing their readers that the "protestors" are Democrat operatives who are sore about John Thune defeating Tom Daschle.

Lying, another Democrat value

Chad Schuldt repeats his "guaranteed benefit" lie and now this from Social Security Choice:

FackCheck.org pulls no punches when it exposes the Democrats’ faulty Social Security reform calculator. From their website:

Democrats have been using a web-based "calculator" to generate individualized answers to the question, "How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?" For young, low-wage workers it projects cuts of up to 50% in benefits. And a $1-million TV advertising campaign is amplifying the claim, saying, "Look below the surface (of Bush’s plan) and you’ll find benefit checks cut almost in half."

In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent.

The calculator’s authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain.

Read it all…and then tell your friends.

Monica prevented private accounts

From Rush Limbaugh:

From the San Francisco Chronicle today, interesting story. Headline... Let me just say the headline: "Social Security Rehab..." (laughing) Rehab. Rehabilitation. "Social Security Rehab Died First Under Clinton; Lewinsky Scandal, Impeachment Ended His Overhaul Attempt -- Who killed Social Security overhaul? A) Harry Reid, B) George W. Bush, C) the AARP or D) Monica Lewinsky? Answer is D, Monica Lewinsky. Seven years ago, the first baby boomer president traveled the country to warn that his generation's impending retirement, 76 million people [who think the world revolves around them] would bankrupt the generations to follow. 'It would be unconscionable if we failed to act,' President Clinton said at a forum in 1998 when he made fixing the nation's retirement program a top priority in his second term. Clinton's efforts then, in light of President Bush's now, induce an extraordinary sense of déjà vu. Clinton appointed a bipartisan commission which delivered in '97 three options to save the program. They included a now familiar list of possible benefit cuts from changing indexing formulas to changing the retirement age, and one of the options would have allowed workers to divert five percentage points of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, the first such proposal by a government commission. Clinton started campaigning for changes without saying what he endorsed. 'I don't want to dodge any of that,' he said. 'but if I advocate a specific plan right now, then all the debate will be about that. First thing we gotta do is get the American people solidly lined up behind change.'

…

How many of you remember that we were this close to this bipartisan -- well, I don't remember it being that close. It never really got that close because of impeachment but they were talking, as opposed to what's happening today. The Republicans did not go out, start running commercials opposed it. The Republicans did not go out and trash Clinton's saying he was trying to do something filled with chicanery. They recognized that it was a problem that needed to be fixed as well. Only today, when the Democrats are in full obstruction mode, are they actually now opposed to what their favorite president in history next to FDR actually proposed in 1998, and Clinton's proposal, 5% of your payroll taxes go to your own private account. Bush's number they're throwing around is 4%. Bush then had his own commission too and it was headed up by a Democrat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Schuldt gives meaning to Argus Liar

Chad Schuldt, former staffer for Senator Tom Daschle, has a letter in today’s Argus Leader. Excerpt:

Is Thune afraid to face his constituents and tell them how the privatization plan he backs will saddle future generations with trillions of dollars in debt and dramatically cut guaranteed benefits?

A couple of months ago I confronted Schuldt with the "guaranteed benefits" lie being spread by the Democrat party. So Schuldt was willing to say something that he knew was not true. When Tim Johnson was in Mitchell, he admitted that the benefits of Social Security are not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled that the benefits are not guaranteed:

The fact remains that benefits under Social Security are not guaranteed. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no ownership claim to their Social Security benefits (Flemming v. Nestor). Not only does this ruling clearly establish that Social Security benefits are not guaranteed, it also reminds us that Congress can cut benefits or even eliminate them altogether at any time. Moreover, as the Social Security Board of Trustee’s report clearly demonstrated this week, doing nothing is a benefit cut. If no changes are made this year, future retirees could face benefit cuts as steep as 27%.

So John Thune will not be spreading the lie Chad Schuldt and his fellow far-left Democrats are spreading. Instead Thune said this is today’s Rapid City Journal:

Thune sees privatization as part of a possible "comprehensive solution."

"Everyone can agree that Social Security is facing a problem that gets worse the longer we wait," Thune said. "We need to welcome all ideas and work together. We cannot afford to dismiss or attack individual ideas as being inadequate before we consider their positive effects as part of a comprehensive solution."

Private accounts are being considered as an option to 27% benefit cut that is looming. The benefits are not guaranteed.

The Argus Leader has rejected letters I wrote by falsely stating they were factually inaccurate. They should have rejected Schuldt’s, but his lie fits into their pro-Democrat agenda.