On Social Security, Say It IS So, Joe!

    There's a highly-funded, highly misinformed,
    highly misleading manufactured "consensus"
    in Washington around the idea that cuts in
    Social Security benefits need to be cut. They
    trade in a small but widely disseminated body
    of lies, and they're going to fight this with
    everything they've got.

By Richard (RJ) Eskow
Huffington Post
August 17, 2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/on-social-security-say-it_b_1786591.html

What Vice President Joe Biden said today was, to
use his now-famous phrase, "a big effin' deal." No,
we're not talking about his "chains" comment which,
as usual, has fascinated a press corps obsessed
with taking statements out of context and playing
"gotcha" games. We're referring to the comments he
made about Social Security in a Virginia coffee shop.

From a press corps pool report, as relayed by NBC
News:

    "Hey, by the way, let's talk about Social Security,"
    Biden said after a diner at The Coffee Break Cafe
    in Stuart, VA expressed his relief that the Obama
    campaign wasn't talking about changing the
    popular entitlement program. "Number one, I
    guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no
    changes in Social Security," Biden said, per a
    pool report."

As if that weren't enough, Biden said it one more
time:

"I flat guarantee you."

What does it mean when those words come from the
Vice President of an Administration that's been
talking for years about a deal to cut Social Security?
A lot.

Could the Vice President have been "off the
reservation," as the saying goes, speaking
unscripted words that don't have the White House's
full backing? Possibly, but it seems unlikely. These
words sound like they were pretty well thought out:
"Hey, by the way, let's talk about Social Security."

And the Vice President said "I guarantee you" -- not
once, not twice, but three times.

It's true that the President has spoken about
making cuts to Social Security as part of a larger
deal, even saying things like this (unwisely, in our
opinion): "Okay, we'll make some modest
adjustments that are phased in over a very long
period of time. Most folks don't notice 'em."

We criticized him for those words then, and if he
repeats them we'll criticize him again. But this is a
sign that the White House's thinking may have
shifted now that Paul Ryan's in the race. Not only
has the Republican Party shown that its most
intransigent wing is now in the ascendancy, making
a post-election deal unlikely, but the Ryan
nomination makes it easier to draw a clear
distinction between the parties on Social Security
and Medicare.

Ryan may be laying low on Social Security right
now, but he's on record as supporting the
unpopular plan to privatize it. Legislation he co-
sponsored in 2005 would have allowed workers to
divert up to 40 percent of their contributions into
private accounts -- accounts that would have
enriched Wall Street bankers and then would have
been devastated by the financial crisis those
bankers created in 2008.

Ryan's Social Security plan would have drained
nearly five trillion dollars from the Social Security
Trust Fund which Americans rely upon for future
benefits, according to Social Security's Chief
Actuary. It would have cut guaranteed benefits by
nearly 40 percent when it was fully implemented.
Ryan's bill would have funneled billions to Wall
Street bankers -- and this supposedly "fiscally
serious" politician's plan would have forcedthe
government to borrow $1.2 trillion which it wouldn't
have been able to repay until 2083.

That makes this the perfect time for the
Administration to describe a stark difference
between its ticket and the GOP's: They'll cut your
Social Security and we won't. They'll privatize it to
make bankers rich off the public dime -- think of it
as another bailout -- and we won't. They'll drive the
nation deeper into hock to benefit their rich friends,
and we won't.

And the White House can even add, as Vice
President Biden did: We flat out guarantee it.

Why have the Vice President say it first? Remember,
Vice President Biden also spoke out in support of
gay marriage shortly before the President did. Part of
the Number Two guy's job is to take some arrows for
the boss. That gives the President's team the chance
to see what works and doesn't work in the
messaging before he speaks up.

To which we say: Great. If we're going to criticize the
top guys when we disagree with them, we should
have their back when they do something we
support. Mr. Vice President, we've got your back on
this one. Mr. President, we'll have yours too.

And they'll need it. There's a highly-funded, highly
misinformed, highly misleading manufactured
"consensus" in Washington around the idea that
cuts in Social Security benefits need to be cut. They
trade in a small but widely disseminated body of
lies, and they're going to fight this with everything
they've got.

The coffee was barely cold in that Virginia coffee
shop when the Washington Post, which is Ground
Zero for this dishonest cabal, went on the attack
against the Vice President. The Post Editorial Board,
which would have repeatedly been sued for
journalistic malpractice if such a thing existed, even
mendaciously repeated the often-disproven lie that
Social Security is "going broke" when it attacked Mr.
Biden.

Shame on them for lying.

"Is 'going broke' too strong?" the Post Editorial Board
asks rhetorically. "Well, let's ask the experts -- the
trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund ..." The
editorial then takes a lot of language out of context
before stating the trustees' conclusion that Social
Security's trust fund (which doesn't include the
billions in revenue the plan collects each year) will
'become exhausted and unable to pay scheduled
benefits in full on a timely basis in 2033.'"

Let's ask that question again: Is "going broke" too
strong?

"Broke": According to Merriam-Webster, it means
"penniless." "Broke": According to Cambridge
Dictionaries, it means "without money." "Broke":
According to MacMillan Dictionary, it means "to
have no money." And "go broke," according to
MacMillan, means "to no longer have any money
and be unable to pay what you owe."

The fund will continue to pay full benefits, with
money in the bank, until 2033. It will pay most of
those benefits -- 75 percent -- after that, because it
will be collecting hundreds of billions of dollars each
year in new revenue. Yet the Post says that it will be
"penniless," will "have no money," will be "without
money," or will be "unable to pay what it owes."

Liars.

Washington's lousy with insiders who are willing to
peddle dreck like this. It would make sense for the
White House's calculus to include letting Joe Biden
take the heat for a while before the President makes
his case.

Of course, as we've already said, Biden could simply
be off-message. If so, the President's campaign is
likely to incur real damage if his team tries to walk it
back. But it seems more likely that this a prelude to
comments from the President in which he'll explain
how he has "evolved" on this issue.

That seems much more likely -- and much smarter.
A firm stance in defense of Social Security -- and
then Medicare -- could be spun off into a number of
winning themes for the White House, such as:

    A youth issue: All the DC insiders' plans to cut
    Social Security are designed to hurt young people
    the most. Defending Social Security for younger
    people is a great way to energize the demoralized
    and disillusioned young people who are
    graduated with record student debt into the worst
    job market in modern memory.

    An issue for seniors: That should need no
    explanation.

    A 99 percent/tax fairness issue: The best way to
    stabilize Social Security's finances is by lifting the
    payroll tax cap and a financial transactions tax,
    and therefore asking the wealthiest among us to
    help undo the harm they've caused through
    exploding wealth inequity and Wall Street
    gambling.

Of course, the White House could say all the right
things about Social Security -- and then make that
December deal and cut it anyway. But when
candidates "flat out guarantees" something, that
gives citizens a lot of leverage to pressure them with
after the election.

Citizen action was able to stop the President from
offering Social Security cuts in his 2010 State of the
Union message. It can work again, especially if the
White House makes a clear stance like this a central
part of its campaign. Could there be a fight in
December? Sure -- but this makes it much more
likely that we could win that fight.

And enough talk about fighting. Let's have a swords-
into-plowshares moment. Right now I'm givin' it up
for Joe Biden and the Administration. Biden said
the right thing, and he said it straight up, without
weasling or waffling. Keep on saying it, Mr. Vice
President, and get the President and the rest of the
team to join you. Everybody will win that way. Say it
is so, Joe, and we'll be right behind you.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate