Madfloridian's Journal - Why are our Democrats joining with right wing groups and Republicans on Social Security?

PPI's Tom Carper joins with Lindsey Graham to fix Social Security.What kind of hell of a combination is that? Don't we have enough Democrats who can band together to solve our problems?

The Progressive Policy Institute, The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, The Heritage Foundation, and The New America Foundation co-hosted this policy forum

This is how they talked about Social Security. I won't even ask why they are working with Lindsey Graham and other Republicans instead of working with progressive groups.

“Everybody’s living like a senator . . . forever,” Graham said at a meeting on the U.S. fiscal crisis

So he recommends they raise the age to fix Social Security. I think it is 67 right now, isn't it?

The age for qualifying for Social Security benefits may need to be raised to reflect longer American life spans, Sens. Thomas R. Carper D-Del., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said at a meeting yesterday on the federal budget. When Social Security was created in 1935, a 65-year-old could expect to live another 12.5 years. Today’s 65-year-olds often have another 17.5 years left, according to Social Security’s Web site. Some Americans will go on for years way beyond that projection, said Graham, whose predecessor, Strom Thurmond, died in 2003 at 100.

“Everybody’s living like a senator . . . forever,” Graham said at a meeting on the U.S. fiscal crisis, sponsored by the nonprofit policy groups, including the conservative Heritage Foundation, and liberal Progressive Policy Institute. “That’s good news.”

The bad news is that Congress needs to take a hard look at Social Security and figure out how to accommodate an increasingly healthy crop of older Americans, without putting excess burdens on younger citizens, the senators and other panelist said. Carper and Graham each cited the work that then-President Ronald Reagan and then-Speaker Tip O’Neill did together in the 1980s to stave off a Social Security crisis as a model for further reform efforts. Democrats and Republicans will need to cooperate again to tackle Social Security, and they will need to make tough choices, the two senators said. Reagan and O’Neill “told their bases things that they didn’t want to hear,” Graham said, adding that that kind of candor will be needed again.

Reagan...isn't he the one who said the worst words were " I am from the government, and I'm here to help you"? That Reagan?

Reagan, who had very bad thoughts about Social Security:

Wanted to privatize retirement, but never had opportunity

Social Security was always more tar baby than Teflon for Reagan. He told me when he was governor of California that Barry Goldwater’s campaign had demonstrated that Republicans could not safely discuss the issue, but Reagan could not stop talking about it. I have no doubt that he shared the view that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. He was intrigued with the idea of a voluntary plan that would have allowed workers to make their own investments. This idea would have undermined the system by depriving Social Security of the contributions of millions of the nation’s highest-paid workers. In 1976 he said that Social Security “could have made a provision for those who could do better on their own” and suggested that such recipients be allowed to leave the program upon showing that “they had made provisions for their non-earning years.” This declaration sent shudders through the ranks of Reagan’s political advisers, who knew his true feelings about Social Security.“
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 243 Jul 2, 1991

Oh, that sounds just like the personal accounts, private accounts...American Dream accounts. But if I say they will undermine Social Security, the wolf pack jumps me. Of course it will undermine it. It is meant to do so.

Didn't we spend the year before we got the majority in Congress last year saying that Social Security was fine and didn't need fixing? I thought so. But now that we are elected, we are going to join with of all people, Lindsey Graham, and of all groups..the Heritage Foundation....to fix what we said wasn't broken.

I remember a figure Lindsey Graham once quoted about where he would draw the line for change. It stuck with me because of the way he talked about $30,000 as though it were a income that was sufficient.

Increases in Social Security's retirement benefits, meanwhile, have long been tied to wages, which rise faster than prices. Graham would leave that system intact for people earning less than $30,000 a year. Higher-income retirees would have growth in benefits tied to inflation, which would shrink senior citizens' checks by billions of dollars.

Bound to irk all sides

My head is spinning. In what world is $30,000 a dividing line between lower and upper income?

To add to the confusion, Hillary says it isn't broken, and she doesn't want to talk about it....and then puts out a policy paper at the DLC, partner to the PPI, called the American Dream Initiative which says it needs fixing.

American Dream Initiative ready for download from DLC

An aging society has no choice but to act. Just as FDR ushered in the Social Security system in the last century, we need to make new provisions for economic security in this one. That means asking every employer to give workers the chance to save, and challenging every American to make the most of it.

So why not just leave it alone? Instead her policy says to set up retirement accounts for workers. It sounds so much like Social Security that it is confusing my poor mind.

American Dream Accounts. Americans deserve to know that a lifetime of work will ensure a secure retirement. We need a new approach that requires every employer to open a retirement account for every worker; enrolls workers automatically unless they opt out; increases their contribution automatically over time unless they direct otherwise; gives employees the advice and guidance to allow them to invest wisely; and enables workers to take their pensions with them when they change jobs

Why spend all that money on personal accounts when we could fix Social Security with it, and make it stable....unless it is that away already.