If you have "no place to go," come here!

Cory Booker throws young people under the bus on Social Security

The Record:

For Social Security, Booker said he opposes raising the retirement age for most people in the country – except, perhaps, for people in their 20s or younger – because the country made promises to them.

Booker's a worse asshole than Obama. We should be doing two things on Social Security:

1. Lowering eligibility to 60

2. Making benefits age-neutral. Why screw young people harder?


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

that I presented earlier, applies in this case.

Not that I agree with raising the age, or "want" it raised for anyone.

But, bear in mind, that a DLC Democrat (and I've posted it here, from the testimony of Edward Gresser, President of the DLC) has testified before the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission that Americans should be expected to work until they are "in their eighth-decade" of life.

Do I agree with this--h*ll no! But I don't make public policy.

And this is where we are going. We are not going to stop this "train wreck" unless we throw out ALL of the DLC/Third Way/New Dem/No Labels/corporatist Dems!

And yet, every day, I see progressive activists and bloggers throwing their support behind DLC/corporatist Dems. And you know what I say to that: "Lesser-Of-Two-Evils, don't cut it, no more." It's a dead end, if one has liberal values, at all.

What more proof do we need, than to look at the policies that this Democratic Party Administration is getting ready to pass?

And, it's not any "one" of these DLCers/corporatist Dems--it's the "entire lot of them," that we've got to dump.

Or otherwise, we're all "wasting our breath"--or fonts. ;-)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

she understands that the "plan" is now to pass a "mini-Grand Bargain,"--cuts to Chained CPI and big cuts to Medicare and Medigap--and have everything "in place" for the next Democratic Party President to actually "pass and enact" the full Grand Bargain/austerity measures.

Unfortunately, my time is extremely limited, but as I am able to, from what Mr A recalled, I'm still searching for video, LOL! If I find it--I'll post it.

Makes good sense to me, since if PBO passed the entire "Grand Bargain"--Dems would likely regain the WH for a decade or two.

OTOH, I somewhat doubt that the President would wait, IF the Democratic Party took the House (and held the Senate).

I don't see how the Dems can pull this off, really. Especially in light of the looming ACA fiasco.

And apparently, Charlie Cook himself concurs (or did several weeks ago, barring some Republican catastrophe or scandal).

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

Since the so-called Deficit and the so-called Deficits of our New Deal Programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI, et al.) are fictions to begin with not only is it inexcusable to tilt the Overton window even a millimeter (e.g., by agreeing to throw today's young under the bus -- this is, incidenally a frequent union tactic, to preserve current membership's benefits they agree to huge cuts for the young coming in behind them), it is imperative that -- as Lambert often suggests -- the entire "Conversation" be shifted to demanding appropriate increases in all the social program's benefits (including lowering the age and increasing monthly payments and creating a non-third-world version of Medicare and Medicaid).

When any of us think about the twentyyearolds who are debt prisoners, can't get real work, etc. etc, as wampums

We should be working to smash the Overton window and replace it with a benchmark that guarantees shelter, food, health, cash and meaningful (well-paid) work or leisure to every American. Not helping to push it any further to the right (if there's any space left in the tracks to begin with).

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

for better social insurance benefits for everyone.

OTOH, having been a union steward for a mostly white collar/professional federal government union in the 1980's, I really can't quite see the analogy between union collective bargaining (I only have first hand knowledge of public employee unions), and formulating federal public policy. Loosely perhaps, but "not technically."

Maybe it's my background with quite a number of years as a federal "bureaucrat" myself, that causes me to be a bit more "accepting" of the process. (Which is definitely not the same as "approving" of the process.)

But mainly, it's because "the reform process" has pretty much always been one of incremental implementation of "major changes," in Social Security and Medicare--both pro and con.

Now, unlike the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission proposal, some of the 1983 reforms actually expanded benefits (while cutting others, and/or imposing additional taxes on some, etc.).

One of the reasons for my concern that the Democrats have decided to drop their progressive stance regarding the cuts, is based on the "severity" of the proposed cuts.

"Strengthen Social Security" at one time put out a flyer (or 2-page brief) which stated that the cuts proposed by the Bowles-Simpson proposal will be between 19% and 42% percent.

Those statistics are mind boggling, to me. Especially if "all one has" is a Social Security pension. (We're "lucky"--we have defined benefit pensions and 401Ks.)

But not everyone does--right?

And somehow, it seems to me that the ramifications of telling a "60-year-old" retail clerk (or some other very low wage earner) that her "promised, scheduled benefits" are going to be cut by 19-42% when she retires in a two to six years, is not quite the same as telling a "20-year-old" young person that in 47 more years, his Social Security retirement benefit will be reduced from the amount that is currently law.

The obvious mitigating factor--unfair as the treatment is to BOTH parties, the latter party can actually take actions to "mitigate" the effect of the policy change.

Whereas the former party, reasonably may not be able to do so. (Aside from being forced to forego retirement, altogether.)

Both are awful propositions--granted.

So, for now, let it suffice to say that I, too, hope that benefits will not be reduced. And I couldn't agree more that there is no real justification for the proposed cuts.

[But, I'd "bet the farm" that they will all go through, within the next few years.]

Soon, I'm going to post one of my "Tweets" from last year, that links to a Table put out by the "Strengthen Social Security" organization.

The chart/table indicates how "devastating" the proposed Social Security cuts will be to very low wage earners.

The Chart/Table illustrates that according to Mr. Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary of the SSA, approximately 60 percent of actual very low earners, who earnings are approximately $10,771 annually, will be included in the draconian cuts proposed by Bowles-Simpson's "The Moment Of Truth."

Frankly, this "blows me away."

All the more, since it will likely be a Democratic Party President who will signs this into law . . .