The Professional Left Is Handing Republicans Precisely What They Want

By: Rmuse/politicususa.

Although human beings hardly give any thought to the process by which they encode, store, and retrieve information,  memory plays an all-important role in everyday life. Intelligent beings tend to use their memory in such a way they do not make the same mistakes over and over again and to avoid making rash decisions that could threaten their very survival. Americans have relatively short memories because they tend to both make knee-jerk reactive decisions and repeat the same mistakes, or fall victim to a recurring condition that caused them distress in the past. Republicans are prone to deliberately forget their policies caused the nation to fall into disrepair and economic distress, but it has nothing to do with their memories and more with their long-term agenda they hardly vary. The political left is really not different than the right in that they forget their past missteps and repeat them despite clear evidence they are on a path to hand Republicans precisely what they want and they are back again heading for a repeat of the 2010 midterm debacle that ushered in the era of right wing extremism and government stagnation.

Obviously, there are few Democrats, Liberals, or Progressives who are pleased that President Obama insinuated his budget due out this week includes changes to the cost of living adjustments (COLA) for Social Security, but their outrage, although understandable, is premature and informs their memories are failing them.  They also reveal ignorance about the power of the head of the Executive branch of government, which is an error they made during the President’s first two years in office that led them to sit out the 2010 midterms and hand power to teabaggers  the nation will have to suffer for at least the next two  years.

First, the President of the United States does not make the nation’s budget; he makes suggestions, attempts to compromise and garner support from an intransigent opposition party, but the nation’s budget is the purview of the United States Congress of which one house is controlled by right-wing extremists. Second, the President made the same exact offer to Republicans during the  fiscal cliff negotiations and they rejected it out of hand and gave the President the first tax increase on the wealthy in over  12  years and no spending cuts or chainedCPI affecting Social Security. Remember too, that there was complete outrage at the end of 2010 because the President failed to convince Republicans to allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but he kept tax cuts for 99% of Americans, secured a payroll tax deduction for two years, and extended unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.

It is seriously time for the Left to take a step back, regroup, and remember what happened a little over three years ago when they whipped themselves into frenzy over issues which the President had no control. Yes, it is appropriate to express opposition to Social Security cuts, and scream at the prospect of the KeystoneXL pipeline’s construction, but revolt over a symbolic budget proposal that has no chance of passing either house of Congress? Maybe the Left should take a look in their own states and focus their outrage on the growing number of Republican legislatures and governors raping the life out of education, Medicaid, safety nets, and public employees and just imagine how much good they will do by primarying Democrats in 2014. However, that means giving an ounce of thought to the process by which they encode, store, and retrieve information, and recalling what happened the last time their outrage and overreaction over something the President had no control overruled their common sense and any modicum of self-preservation and regard for their fellow Americans. One understands why Republicans conveniently forget the damage their consistent policies produce, but it is beyond reason why the Left is willing to revisit the damage they caused this country when they sat out an important midterm election and worse, are making plans to do it again. Here is a news flash; Congress writes and enacts the nation’s budget, they alone have power to repeal DADT and DOMA, create a public option, fund relocating Guantanamo, and will be the branch that will not pass anything this President proposes. And for the record, they certainly will not be giving emoprogs unicorns, a medal for Bradley Manning, or anything else that helps the American people, so think long and hard about 2014 and if it is humanly possible, remember 2010.

GOP Rep. Ron Paul Admits He Takes Social Security, Which He Once Likened To Slavery

By Pat Garofalo/Think Progress

Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a libertarian hero, last year said that allowing Social Security to exist is akin to permitting slavery. But during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, Paul admitted to the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein that he collects Social Security checks anyway:

STEIN: A bit of a personal question then, are you on Social Security? Do you get Social Security checks?

PAUL: I do.

STEIN: Well, I mean, is there — you just told younger generations that they should ween themselves off this social contract.

PAUL: That is true.

STEIN: But you haven’t done it yourself…Don’t you think you chould have set a good example for the future generations. You’re not the wealthiest man in congress, I know that, but you have enough means to take care of yourself in retirement…Couldn’t you have set an example?

PAUL: No. I think the programs are so designed, just as I use the post office too, I use government highways, I do that too, I use the banks, the federal reserve system, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t work to remove this in the same way on Social Security.

Watch it:

Paul is, of course, not the only conservative to benefit from government programs that he or she opposes. But his crankish view of the Constitution has brought him to the conclusion that Social Security is altogether unconstitutional, which also hasn’t stopped him from collecting benefits.

Gingrich’s Latest Social Security Scheme: Privatize The Program Then Bail Out Bad Investors

By Pat Garofalo/think progress

2012 GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich today released his latest big idea: a return to Bush-style Social Security privatization. Gingrich has been quite vocal in his support for privatized Social Security accounts, but today marked the first time that he laid out specifics as to how he would gut one of the most successful programs in American history.

First, Gingrich explains that he would let workers opt into private accounts, just like Bush’s suggested system. Gingrich points to two models that inspired him to suggest this approach: privatized retirement accounts in both Chile and Galveston, Texas. He added the caveat that, should private accounts fail to deliver the same return as minimum Social Security benefits, the government would step in and make investors whole again:

The government guarantees that all workers with personal accounts will receive at least as much in retirement as they would under the current Social Security system. If someone with a personal account retires with benefits lower than those offered by the current system, the Treasury will send them a check to make up the difference. Thus, there is a legal government obligation that in a worst case scenario a retiree will be able to enjoy benefits at least as good as they would under th e traditional Social Security system.

Watch him explain the idea at a campaign event today:

As we pointed out when Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) suggested a similar idea, promising to make investors whole again sets up a huge moral hazard problem. If investors know full well that the government is going to provide them with a minimum benefit, no matter what they do, then the incentive is to make risky investments and hope for a big payoff. After all, why not take the risk if the government has guaranteed that you can’t lose money? Investors have every incentive to bet big in the hopes of a large payout, because if they go bust, the government will bail them out.

Add to this the fact that the privatized systems in Chile and Galveston aren’t as wonderful as Gingrich makes out. In fact, while they work quite well for the wealthy, middle- and lower-income participants wind up worse off. Regarding the Galveston system, Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University, explained that “for most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ” Chile’s system, meanwhile, has “left millions without savings for their retirement.” According to estimates by Chile’s undersecretary for pensions, “in 2007, only 60 percent of Chilean workers had some kind of pension coverage,down from 86 percent in the 1970s.”

Gingrich’s plan would also cause the deficit to explode, as money meant for Social Security would have to be diverted into the creation and administration of private accounts. Social Security kept 14 million seniors out of poverty last year, but Gingrich would enact a scheme to privatize the system, while hoisting the costs of failure onto the federal government.

Herman Cain said Social Security was racist in 2008 radio ad

By Eric W. Dolan

Presidential candidate Herman Cain served as the spokesman and donated at least $1 millionto a radio ad campaign that Republicans condemned as racist. He even starred in an ad himself.

Since 2002, the organization America’s PAC has run radio ads in hopes of convincing African-American and Hispanic voters to support the Republican Party. The group claims to have directed more than 200 TV and radio spots for conservative candidates.

In a 2008 radio ad for the group, Cain alleged that Social Security discriminated against African-Americans.

“Democrats oppose Social Security reform,” he said. “But here’s what they don’t tell you: Social Security is the most discriminatory government program we have.”

“The average retirement age is now 66 years,” Cain explained. “But the average life expectancy of a black man is now 68, and the life expectancy of a white man is 74. Black men get two years of retirement benefits, and white men get eight years, after we pay into Social Security our entire working lives.”

“The current Social Security structure is bad for everybody, but it is worse for black people.”

Cain added that the Republicans proposal would allow people to put money from their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.

“If the Republican plan becomes law, we can insure a secure retirement, where your retirement savings go to you, not to the government,” he concluded. “The Republicans understand this.”

In 2006, radio ads produced by America’s PAC were denounced by George W. Bush’s campaign as “inappropriate.” The Republican National Committee called the ads “racist or race-baiting in intent.”

At the time, Cain said the group was challenging the belief that the Republican Party could not attract minority voters. He claimed radio ads run in 2004 helped Bush gain more support among African-Americans in Ohio, up 16 percent from 9 percent in 2000.

“Now, I understand why a former Ku Klux Klanner favors the terrorists,” a man in one 2006 ad said. “But what I want to know is why so many of the Democrat politicians I helped elect are on the same side of the Iraq war as David Duke?”

In another ad, a man said that he didn’t vote Republican because if he “made a little mistake” with one of his “ho’s” he could “dispose of that problem.”

“That’s too cold,” another man replies. “I don’t snuff my own seed.”

“Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican,” the first man said.

Listen to the radio ad, courtesy of Right Wing Watch, below:

Herman Cain Compares Social Security To Slavery

By Tanya Somanader/Think Progress

When it comes to Social Security, the pugilisticpresidential contender Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is normally the one attracting all the attention. After all, he called the program all sorts of names: A “Ponzi scheme,” a “monstrous lie,” and unconstitutional. But the new GOP front runner — pizza mogul Herman Cain — seems eager to challenge Perry’s title as the world heavyweight champion fear-monger on the nation’s most successful economic program.

From 2005 to 2010, Cain wrote weekly commentary for his company The New Voice, Inc. He dedicated a few of his columns to register full support for President George W. Bush’s disastrous idea to privatize Social Security. Viewing Social Security as “immoral” and “oppressive,” he blasted Democrats for supporting “involuntary servitude” of African Americans through the Social Security and payroll tax system. From one column entitled, “Ownerships: An Unalienable Right”:

The 70-year-old Social Security structure and the 92-year-old income tax code thwart the natural, individual motivation of citizens to use their God-given talents to pursue happiness and their respective dreams. Any program that undermines an individual’s liberty to create ownership is, then, by its very nature, immoral. It took our nation nearly 250 years to end slavery and live up to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. It should not take us another 250 years to cease the involuntary negative return most working people receive from Social Security, or the involuntary servitude imposed by the oppressive income tax code.

In another column entitled “Separate Water Fountains,” Cain said the Social Security system “by its very nature discriminates against black men and women.” With their “unconscionable” refusal to implement private accounts, Democratic “so-called black leaders” want to see “the next generation of Blacks remain in economic slavery on the Democratic plantation“:

It is now evident that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not apply to the Social Security system. Due to the rising retirement age, differences in life expectancy between Blacks and Whites, and mandatory payroll tax deductions,the system by its very nature discriminates against black men and women.[...]

Perhaps most unconscionable is the opposition to personal retirement accounts by the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and many of our nation’s so-called black leaders. Personal retirement accounts would provide future generations of Blacks the retirement security their parents and grandparents never had.

Instead, black Democratic leaders are willing to see the next generation of Blacks remain in economic slavery on the Democratic plantation, so long as they can deny any Republican a perceived political victory.

Cain’s over the top rhetoric strongly suggests that he shares Perry’s belief that Social Security is unconstitutional. Under the 13th Amendment, “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

His claims are also wildly inaccurate. Indeed, the nearly 5 million African Americans who receive Social Security benefit more from this essential program than the average white American. Studies show that they “receive modestly more in Social Security benefits for each dollar they pay in payroll taxes than whites do” because of the progressive benefit structure and that they benefit more from SSDI because they are unfortunately more likely “to become disabled or die before retiring.”

Private accounts, however, would leave African-Americans worse off. As the GAO notes, they “are likely to disproportionately affect equity for minorities.” Because of the “gaps in earnings at younger ages and lower average pay than whites who have the same level of education,” minorities would be at a disadvantage in how much and when they could invest in the private account. Ultimately, “the risks would be more acute for African Americans than for whites, and the potential rewards likely would be smaller.”

As is often the case with Cain, the rhetorical glaze can’t hide the rotten consequences of his policies. And given the popularity of the program as it is, he’s unlikely to win over anyone by equating them with slave owners.

Three Years After The Financial Crash, GOP Candidates Revive Desire To Privatize Social Security

By Tanya Somanader/Think Progress

Since jumping in the race, GOP presidential front runner Gov. Rick Perry’s (TX) radical views on Social Security have garnered the most attention. And for good reason, as Perry lands far to the right of even his most right-wing opponents in calling the entitlement program a unconstitutional “Ponzi scheme.” A fan of secession, Perry even suggested letting individual states “secede” from Social Security altogether.

But Perry’s extremism is taking focus away from the fact that most of the top contenders also embrace a radical idea: Social Security privatization. As the AP reports, most of the top Republicans running are reviving President George W. Bush’s unpopular plan to create private investment accounts for young workers — believing that “workers could get a better return from investing in publicly traded securities.” Indeed, the idea of risking retirement funds in the stock market — three years after the financial crash on Wall Street — is finding a champion in almost ever Republican candidate:

MITT ROMNEY: The former Massachusetts governor has a well-worn record of advocating to privatize Social Security. In 2007, when Romney was also running for president, he pushed for the creation of Social Security personal accountsthree separate times. When a town hall attendee told him such a plan was “privatization,” Romney replied, “you call it privatization. I call it a private account.” He enshrined this position in his 2010 book No Apology, stating “individual retirement accounts would encourage more Americans to invest in the private sector that powers our economy.”

MICHELE BACHMANN: In an interview last year, the Minnesota congresswoman insisted young workers “need to have some options in their life, so that going forward they can have ownership for their own Social Security, their own retirement, something they can pass on to the beneficiary of their choice.” When asked in 2008 how Republicans could promote privatization without frightening seniors, she responded, “I believe that we should ensure that those currently receiving Social Security should continue to do so in its current form, but also give a new generation of workers the right to invest some of their money into accounts of their own.” In 2006, she pledged to vote for “regulated individual retirement accounts.”

RON PAUL: During last week’s presidential debate, Rep. Paul (TX) drew applause for stating, “What I would like to do is to allow all the young people to get out of Social Security and go on their own!” He told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last year that he’d support “turn[ing] this money over and give the individual money like an investment retirement fund that they manage.”

RICK SANTORUM: After writing an op-ed calling to “establish personal retirement accounts” in 2005, the former Pennsylvania senator actually launched his 2012 presidential campaign by reminding everyone that he supports these President George W. Bush-style private accounts. He hedged last month on calling for the immediate creation of accounts, but only because having to additionally pay for Social Security benefits while financing such accounts “is to me just something that we can’t do right now.” “I’d love to be able to do it,” he added.

HERMAN CAIN: In the Tea Party debate last week, the pizza mogul declared, “I support a personal retirement system option in order to phase [out] the current system. We know that this works.”

NEWT GINGRICH: Last year, the former House Speaker endorsed House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to create personal accounts. He believed such a plan would “triple the earnings” for future retirees. He has touted such a plan since 2007.

Jon Huntsman has not specifically called for private accounts but he did say at the Tea Party debate that “I don’t think anything should be off the table.”

A Social Security policy that ties retirement funds to the volatility of the stock market is nothing short of foolhardy. Three years ago, if Bush had succeeded in creating private accounts, an American worker would have lost $26,000 on the market. As ThinkProgress’ Travis Waldron notes, millions of Americans who did have a private account like a 401(k) lost nearly everything in the crisis, and Social Security is the only source of retirement funds they have left. Thevolatility of market behavior in large industrialized economies like ours “illustrates the real potential for decades-long declines that could erode the value of a private retirement account invested in stocks.”

There are better, safer ways to ensure that Social Security is solvent for the next 75 years. But as long as Republican candidates refuse to learn very recent lessons from the past few years, they will cleave to policies that endanger the golden years of millions of Americans.

Gov. McDonnell: When Perry Says ‘Ponzi Scheme’ He Means ‘Preserve This Valuable Safety Program’

By Pat Garofalo/Think Progress

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has been taking a lot of well-deserved flak for deriding Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.” But during Monday night’s GOP presidential primary debate, Perry doubled down on his position, saying, “this is a broken system. It has been called a Ponzi scheme by many people long before me.”

Even Perry’s supporters are clearly uncomfortable with this characterization. Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) endorsed Perry this week, but when asked repeatedly, refused to agree with Perry that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. “It doesn’t matter what you call it, what’s most important is the substantive point he was making,” Jindal claimed.

Yesterday, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) — who succeeded Perry as head of the Republican Governors’ Association and has been floated as a potential Republican vice presidential candidate — told a local reporter that, when Perry says “Ponzi scheme,” what he is “actually trying to say” is that we should “preserve this valuable safety program for our senior citizens for our future generations”:

Q: What do you think about him calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme?

MCDONNELL: I think what he was trying to say and what all the Republicans were trying to say is to be honest with the people and say if you want to preserve this valuable safety program for our senior citizens for our future generations, we’ve go to reform it.

Watch it:

Social Security is indeed a valuable program. Last year alone, it kept 14 million seniors out of poverty.

Earlier this week, Perry wrote an op-ed on Social Security without using his favorite terms for the program: “Ponzi scheme” and “monstrous lie.” And evidently, he needs to start bringing McDonnell to his campaign events in order to translate his words into something that the American public doesn’t find terrifying.

VIDEO: Protestors At Florida Tea Party Debate Defend Social Security Against GOP Attacks

By Scott Keyes/Think Progress

Before yesterday’s Republican presidential debate began, 75 to 100 Floridians gathered outside to protest the Tea Party’s goals and defend Social Security against constant GOP attacks.

Ever since Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) entered the race last month, dismantling Social Security has been a central topic of debate among Republican presidential hopefuls. Perry has not been shy about calling the popular retirement program a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie.” In his own book, published 10 months ago, Perry even called Social Security unconstitutional.

ThinkProgress spoke with a number of Floridians about these attacks on Social Security. We also asked how they thought Republicans’ plan for the retirement program would be received in the Sunshine State. Watch a compilation video of their responses here:

Though GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his staff have forcefully attacked Perry for wanting to abolish the treasured retirement program, it’s worth noting that the former Massachusetts governor’s support for privatizing Social Security is not much better. Protestors understood the threat, however, and implored Republicans not to cut or privatize Social Security but rather help keep it solvent by lifting the payroll tax cap.

VIDEO: Rick Perry Calls Medicare And Social Security Unconstitutional

By Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

At last night’s CNN/Tea Party Republican presidential candidate’s debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) repeatedly refused to answer whether he still believes that Social Security is unconstitutional, but Perry wasn’t always so shy. Just last December, Perry addressed a group of conservative lobbyists and state lawmakers at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s National Policy Summit, and he openly and proudly declared his belief that most of the 20th Century violates the Constitution:

The nearly unlimited scope of the federal government contradicts the principles of limited, constitutional government that our founders established to protect us. [...]

The assault on those boundaries continued into the Roosevelt New Deal. [...] [T]he New Deal’s legacy is a glut of federal programs, and [sic] including a bankrupt Social Security system. I don’t know how you would call it anything other than that. I promise you, my two twenty-something year old kids understand that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It is a Ponzi scheme on the scale that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amateur. [...]

Then came along President Johnson and its Great Society, and it further eroded our founding fathers’ boundaries that they had put upon the federal government. Medicare! Medicaid!

Watch it:

So Perry knows perfectly well how to explain his belief that America’s seniors must be left in the cold without Social Security or Medicare. He’s just too afraid to say it again now that he wants to be president.