As they discuss, it's very nice that it a complete financial collapse has been averted, at least so far, but the overall economic situation, the unemployment situation, and lack of loans points to many areas where Bernanke simply has been unsuccessful. It seems the President and some Senators want to grade him on a curve, but I think Menendez should seriously think about blocking Bernanke simply to send a message. Lots of people are losing their jobs, Govenor Corzine was voted out, and however how hard Bernanke works, his tenure has been a failure and someone should pay a price. Menendez needs to think seriously about whether it will be Bernanke, Geithner and the rest, or whether it will Menendez himself in 2012.
Furthermore, he has resisted regulations that are obviously needed and tried to block a bipartisan attempt to find out what the Fed is actually doing. (They are literally making trillions of dollars in loans with no oversight.)
In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee today, where he's seeking re-appointment as the Fed's chairman, Bernanke called for cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security even as unemployment rises and the middle class is endangered.
Citing legendary bank robber Willie Sutton, Bernanke said of the retirement and health care funds that are the legacy of the New Deal: "That's where the money is." ...
Bernanke reminded Congress that it has the power to repeal Social Security and Medicare.
"It's only mandatory until Congress says it's not mandatory. And we have no option but to address those costs at some point or else we will have an unsustainable situation," said Bernanke.
This testimony tells us Bernanke will use his authority--given by Menendez--to try to undermine and dismantle Social Security and Medicare. (Raising the SS cap--with an income hole--would solve the SS problems and meet President Obama's campaign promises.) Menendez needs to plan for a Democratic solution to entitlement funding issues, not a right-wing one, and that means rejecting Bernanke now. And by the way, Menendez should let his friends in the White House know that the base is already suspicious that Obama plans to attack Social Security, and he should let them know that this "gaffe" is going to hurt Obama if nothing is done.
At his town hall in NJ today, John McCain says that he doesn't want to privatize Social Security, but he wants to allow younger people to put a percentage of the money in an account for themselves. (video is after the jump)
And I, just to let you know, want to preserve the death penalty but not allow anyone to be put to death.
I also want to preserve dual-office holding, but want to deny elected officials from holding more than one elected position.
Seriously, didn't McCain watch Bush get slapped around trying exactly this same thing in 2005? It was the turning point when his party started going south!
But the real point I want to make is how stupid it is of McCain to defend the privatization use of private Social Security accounts by repeating the mantra, "It's their money, It's their money."
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our government in general and of Social Security in specific. Because -- wait for it -- IT'S NOT THEIR FUCKING MONEY.
Social Security is built upon a contract between the recipients and the payees, and enforced by the federal government. It's a very simple contract, as well, which anyone with an ounce of sense can understand.
1) Payees pay for payments made to current recipients, including retirees, the aged, widows and widowers, children and the disabled;
2) When said payees reach a certain age, become widowed, or die leaving a widow(er) or children, then these same payments accrue to them.
When we send money to Verizon for our cell phone, we don't think of it as "my money" after we send the check. Hell, we don't even think of insurance payments as "my money" after we write the check -- but just like Social Security we expect to receive the service after we paid the premium.
It's not like putting your money into a savings account, a pension fund, a mattress or anywhere else. It's just insurance: if you pay for other people today, you are guaranteed to receive payments when you are in that situation later.
It's the same problem as when Republicans talk about taxes as if it is an individual's money. It's not Bob Barker's money, or Mr. Huntsu's money, or George Bush's money, or Sally the Dry Cleaner's money.
We all pay into a fund, and after we pay into the fund it is not any individual's money. It belongs to all of us, and we elect people like John McCain to figure out the best way to spend it to make the country even better. It's the price of living in the best, freest, most economically mobile country in the world.
But the Republicans don't understand this. They think that the money they pay in taxes is somehow a punishment as opposed to a payment for services to be rendered.
Could the payment be lower? Certainly. Could the product be better? Certainly. That's not my argument.
The argument is that taxes -- Social Security or income or whatever -- are part of a contract we have with our country to pay for the services we are to receive. Just like our phones, cable, water, electric, insurance and other bills the money is no longer ours once we pay for the product.
You'd think people who are so into the free market would get this.
Today, U.S. Senator Mel Martinez was named the new general chairman of the Republican National Committee. Like Senator Menendez, Senator Martinez is a Cuban-American.
And also like Senator Menendez, Senator Martinez voted to table this amendment:
S.Amdt. 3985 to S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006)
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
If you've already forgotten, this vote spawned numerous attacks on Senator Menendez. My home received two mailers, funded by the NJ Republican State Committee, entirely devoted to that vote. And who can forget the ads?
So the question is, 'Will the NJ GOP attack Chairman Martinez for giving Amnesty and Social Security benefits to illegal aliens?'
A list of the other GOP Senators who voted to table the amendment after the jump.
The Republicans are going all over New Jersey telling people that the Democrats want to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. The Republican State Committee is sending out mailers, the RNC is putting up commercials, and Kean Jr is using this talking point to avoid giving his own plan -- on immigration or Social Security.
This is a hollow campaign tactic the Republicans are using around the country. Who else voted for the Senate ammendment? Republicans McCain, Hagel, Stevens, Lugar, Martinez, Graham, Specter, Chafee, and Voinovich. So what's this all about?
It's a part of a larger Republican strategy to privatize Social Security.
President Bush has announced his intentions, but he has some very hardened opinions to overcome. Americans don't trust him to fix Social Security. They think his party is ill-intentioned. So what do they do?
They plant the seeds of doubt early. They will ask, "You trust the Democrats on Social Security?! You know their plan is to give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants? Don't you remember it from the campaign?"
In the October 26 issue of the Cranford Chronicle, it is reported that Ferguson claims he would not vote to privatize Social Security:
The race for Congress ran through Cranford last week, as Republican Mike Ferguson, the incumbent in New Jersey's Seventh Congressional District, and Democratic challenger Linda Stender, a state assemblywoman from Union County, met with residents of the Cranford Senior Housing complex.
Appearing separately before the seniors, Stender and Ferguson fielded pre-selected questions on topics such as Social Security, stem cell research and the war in Iraq...
On Social Security, both candidates are against privatization and agreed that benefits to current recipients should not and will not be changed.
Well, do you remember March 4, 2005? On that day, Ferguson stood beside George W. Bush at the Westfield Armory during Bush's Social Security Bamboozlepalooza Tour. Mike might say that he is against privatization, but if you pressed him, he would probably start talking about personal accounts or individual accounts - which are just other ways of saying privatization. According to TPM blogger Josh Marshall, Ferguson favors Social Security privatization and phase-out, and he has supported the Bush scheme for years. Ferguson is trying to fool voters with semantics, and he is being dishonest.
Instead of working to strengthen Social Security, improve Medicare, and lower the cost of prescription drugs, Bush and Ferguson are doing the opposite and are catering to special interest groups that look to take advantage of seniors.
President Bush and Mike Ferguson should be ashamed of themselves for their positions on Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs. Last year, Mike Ferguson even brought President Bush to Westfield to discuss his proposal to privatize Social Security.
Mike Ferguson has voted nine times to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. In 2005, he also voted for a GOP budget resolution that will raid the Social Security Trust Fund of more than $1.1 trillion over the next five years.
With the seventy-first anniversary of Social Security coming up this monday, Senate Democrats are serving notice that they plan to make the President's privatization scheme a centerpiece in their stragety to retake the House and Senate in November.
After the resonding political defeat Bush took on socSec privatization last year, you'd think the idea would be long dead. Think again. In fact, the President's Chief of Staff and Treasury secretary have both expressed their will to renew the push to gamble your retirement security in the stockmarket. You know the calculus by now: if Bush gets his way, the debt will go up up up and benefits will go down down down. I should note that the stock market is actually lower today than it was the day Bush was elected...I'll let you do the math. In the meantime, it's worth underscoring that without a compliant GOP Congress, the President's plans will fail. Resoundingly.
Yesterday, the outreach and advocacy group Center for America's Future hosted a conference call with Senator Menendez and others to discuss the stragety to beat back the privatization scheme once and for all. The fact is, this issue is huge. Not only is socSec the single biggest issue among the over-65 set, but it's a priority for swing voters as well. In other words, this is a major campaign issue for the Democrats heading into November.
Sen. Menendez:
(Social Security) ensures dignity and independence in the twilight years. Americans -- when armed with the facts will refuse to go along (with Bush's plan to privatize.)
Tom Kean Jr was on WHYY's Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane yesterday, as part of the "meet the candidate" series. (For those of you not in the Philly area, that's the local NPR affiliate.) Anyway the show was an hour long and Junior did his best to avoid anything really substanative.
You should listen to the interview if you get a chance. Granted, it's not terribly compelling. But to listen to Kean talking hammers home the need to keep him out of the Senate.
I managed to get on the show and ask about Social Security. His answer wasn't very satisfying. Our exchange went like this:
Marty: We've got Jay from Cherry Hill. Jay, go ahead.
Jay: G'morning Marty, thanks for taking my call. I'm just wondering if Mr. Kean could possibly clarify his position on the Social Security debate, privatization, etc.
Junior: (Long, long awkward pause.) I......I.....oppose privatization. (another long pregnant pause)
Marty: And by that you also part ways with the President?
Junior: Ummmm, yes.......Certainly.
Marty: Although when you were running for Congress in 2000 -- I'm looking at a Star Ledger report here -- you supported investing 2% of the Social Security trustfund in the stockmarket. Maybe you changed your position on that?
Junior: What I was focusing on in 2000, ummm, I have the exact same position that Jon Corzine and Bob Menendez had at the time. Clearly those options are off the table and I disagree with the President fundamentally on this issue. Blah blah blah blah blah Bob Menendez, blah blah. Yammer yammer Bob Menendez boo hoo hoo. Piss piss, moan moan. Bob Menendez blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yadda Bob Menendez, blah blah blah.
(Continue beneath the fold for the really good stuff.)
For those of you who thought George W. Bush's plan to privative Social Security was a thing of the past, THINK AGAIN.
In today's press conference at the Trenton Statehouse, Senator Robert Menendez issued a clear warning: inspite of the beatdown the President took on Social Security last year, Bush plans to reintroduce his privatization scheme right after the November election.
Menendez:
Last month (Whitehouse chief of staff Bolton) said the President intends to again put privatization front and center on the agenda when a new Congress convenes next year. The sad reality is that Social Security is still under siege. George Bush is trying to privatize it and Tom Kean Jr. wants to go to Washington to help him finish the job. And I'm not gonna let him."
Sen. Lautenberg was also on hand, as were Congressmen Andrews, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne and Rothman.
Lautenberg:
We shouldn't be risking people's money when, for many, Social Security is their primary source of independence. Since 2000, the stock market is down 4%. It's too much of a gamble.
Then he quipped that the press conference should have been in Atlantic City since the Bush/Kean plan is like "rolling the dice."
So the idea of tying up Social Security into the stock market seems like a curious plan. Who would stand to gain the most? Wallstreet perhaps?
Here's my suggestion for the theme song of Tom Kean Jr.'s campaign for the U.S. Senate. I offer it to Kid Kean free of charge -- not because he's hard up for cash, what with Dick Cheney and other GOP sleaze weasels helping out with fundraising, but because I'm picky about where my money comes from. Unlike Tom.
Joshua Marshall at Talking Points Memo challenged readers to find out where Tom Kean, Jr stands on Social Security, since his website is incredibly vague.
Tom Kean Jr has been on the "destroy Social Security" bandwagon for quite a while. It turns out that when Junior ran for a House seat in 2000, his position was crystal clear. He wanted to take the "social" out of Social Security:
Mr. Kean supports investing 2 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund in the Stock Market, in the form of personal retirement accounts that would be controlled by individuals rather than the government.
Since then, he's been asked about Social Security countless times and has never disavowed his previous position. The statement on his website is still worded to be intentionally vague, but he can't hide from the fact that he'll just be another rubber stamp for gutting Social Security. Is he too ashamed to admit his true intentions to New Jersey voters?
If you've followed Blue Jersey's up-to-the-second budget coverage, you've probably asked yourself why one very important name never came up - Republican Senatorial candidate Tom Kean, Jr. Well, there's a very good reason for it. Knowing that this year's budget would be contentious and monumental and history making (how many other descriptors can I cram in here?), he decided to avoid his responsibilities on the State Senate Budget Committee. Junior took a powder on the budget, so we'll never know where he stands on sales tax, state shutdowns, or the giant rat that was erected in honor of Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts and his cronies in the "Screw Corzine" caucus.
Tom Kean, Jr. - fresh from his dual debate spanking by Bob Menendez - is now being haunted by his past. He writes (ok, someone wrote it FOR him) on his campaign site:
Tom is committed to keeping the promise of Social Security for current recipients and those nearing retirement. At the same time, changes will be required to keep the program solvent for future generations. This problem can only be solved through bipartisan cooperation. In the U.S. Senate, Tom will work with Republicans and Democrats to find bipartisan solutions to the long-term challenges facing Social Security, so that this important program can continue to provide retirement security for Americans far into the future.
The problem is that the Kiddo only last year voted against a bill that would tell President Bush to keep his greedy paws off our Social Security funds - twice.
Here's some nice analysis of the State of the Union from Senator Lautenberg's office:
Charts released today by United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) shows that President George Bush in his five State of the Union addresses wrapped himself in topics that were popular with the American people, but ignored the same issues when public opinion soured.
For example, during his 2004 SOTU speech, President Bush mentioned his plan for a Medicare prescription drug law nine times. Tuesday night President Bush did not mention the new law at all, which took effect on Jan. 1 amid mass confusion.
Methinks a Flim-Flam artist walks amongst us.
