No Specifics

In order to afford extending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, plus his own new proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, John McCain has proposed some unspecified cuts in Social Security. Why won't he specify? Well:

"The lesson of history is that too many specifics at this point polarize the debate, that is the argument Carly was trying to make," Taylor Griffin said. "However, John McCain does believe that we can fix Social Security without raising taxes. As president, John McCain will call on Congress to develop a bi-partisan solution to Social Security — and if they won't, he will."

As Mark Kleiman says "'Too many specifics at this point polarize the debate' translates into English as 'If we told the retirees how completely we plan to shaft them, they might not vote for us.'"

I hasten to add: Not just retirees! One common scheme is to try to propose cuts that exempt current retirees and the soon-to-be-retired from any pain in favor of huge planned cuts for folks my age down the road on the theory that we don't really care about our future.

Comments

I feel like repeating my comment from earlier, that conservatism is a fraudulent political ideology based on the rich enriching themselves, and that they don't mind doing it at the expense of others.

So McCain wants to privatize and cut back social security? Hmmm, that tastes of electoral suicide.

Posted by TDE | July 15, 2008 3:34 PM

"Ponies!"

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 3:36 PM

I like how bipartisanship is now transcendent of members of both parties supporting something - "if they don't, he will"

Posted by Bryce | July 15, 2008 3:41 PM

Sort of like eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Posted by y81 | July 15, 2008 3:42 PM

Current retirees have it safest. Hopefully the right thing for Soc Sec will be done - nothing.

Posted by American Citizen | July 15, 2008 3:47 PM

I like how bipartisanship is now transcendent of members of both parties supporting something - "if they don't, he will"

One could say that John McCain constitutes two parties unto himself, what with all the flipping and flopping. A one-man bipartisan task force. He contains multitudes.

Posted by Jake H. | July 15, 2008 3:48 PM

If anyone's getting me to sign onto Social Security "reform" it better screw current retirees just as bad as it screws me. I'm paying their damn retirement!

Posted by James Hare | July 15, 2008 3:48 PM

John McCain can't even figure out how to use Google and now we're supposed to believe he's going to solve Social Security?

Posted by jbentley | July 15, 2008 3:50 PM

The only way SS "reform", that is cutting or privatizing, is going to work is if most present and future beneficiaries, which includes everyone now working or retired except government employees, fail to realize that benefits will be cut. So the main objective of privatizers is to obfuscate - if someone supports privatization, he/she is probably saying something misleading or false. The falsities may be second-hand, as many who should know better have fallen for the propaganda line that there is a crisis in SS.

Posted by skeptonomist | July 15, 2008 3:51 PM

"As president, John McCain will call on Congress to develop a bi-partisan solution to Social Security — and if they won't, he will."

Yes, the idea is to avoid polarizing the debate. So let's allude to preferring another encroachment on executive power gone awry. What the hell could the President do on the matter that wouldn't require Congress?

Posted by socctty | July 15, 2008 3:52 PM

"However, John McCain does believe that we can fix Social Security without raising taxes. As president, John McCain will call on Congress to develop a bi-partisan solution to Social Security — and if they won't, he will."

Translation: "We have two choices. We can cut Social Security payments and increase the surplus, so I can spend it and "balance" the budget on the backs of the lower and middle class, or we can privatize and the money to do that will show up from someplace. Oh, yeah. PONIES!"

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 3:52 PM

One common scheme is to try to propose cuts that exempt current retirees and the soon-to-be-retired from any pain in favor of huge planned cuts for folks my age down the road on the theory that we don't really care about our future.

This sort of divide-and-rule tactic is known in the union-busting context as two-tier, a tactic in which management says to the union, "we won't cut the benefits of any current member, only those of employees who are hired in the future." It's quite clever. Pit actual union members against hypothetical not-yet-hired union members. For which read, elderly voters acutely aware of their retirement needs, against younger voters who aren't paying much attention.

Posted by Gee | July 15, 2008 3:59 PM

Who the hell does McCain appeal to? It seems like every day he considers some new stupidity that chips away another key demographic from his support base. In the end, even Cindy will leave him.

Posted by z_adura | July 15, 2008 3:59 PM

One common scheme is to try to propose cuts that exempt current retirees and the soon-to-be-retired from any pain in favor of huge planned cuts for folks my age down the road on the theory that we don't really care about our future.

I think the idea is that middle-age folks have spent their entire lives paying into the Social Security system so it would be unjust not to deliver on the promised benefits. Even Ron Paul was conceding this.

Folks your age (and my age) have a lot less invested in Social Security, have in many many cases begun thinking about retirement in a world where Social Security no longer exists, and have a lot longer time remaining to adjust to a new policy landscape. It has nothing to do with us not "really caring about our future."

Posted by right | July 15, 2008 4:02 PM

Do I get my Money back If they change it? We pay the older people then become old and the young pay us. Well if the young are not going to pay me I want my Money Back!

Posted by cheflovesbeer | July 15, 2008 4:03 PM

Actually, the theory is that people Matt's age aren't supposed to mind privitization schemes because they haven't paid much into Social Security yet, and they will also get many years of supposedly superior returns in private accounts.

No, the people who would get screwed are the Generation X folks, who would lose benefits, have less time to make it up with private accounts, and be in their peak salary--and thus peak income tax--years when the transition costs for all this would be getting paid. And the theory isn't that we members of Generation X don't care about this mass transfer of wealth to the Boomers. The theory is that the Boomers can simply outvote us.

Posted by DTM | July 15, 2008 4:03 PM

"As president, John McCain will call on Congress to develop a bi-partisan solution to Social Security"

If Democrats and Republicans would just cooperate in looking through the piles of horseshit, they would surely find the pony.

Posted by Njorl | July 15, 2008 4:05 PM

That last line is priceless though: "As president, John McCain will call on Congress to develop a bi-partisan solution to Social Security — and if they won't, he will."

John McCain -- capable of devising bi-partisan solutions all by himself!

Posted by right | July 15, 2008 4:07 PM

Democrats and Social Security supporters in general do a poor job of refuting the GOP-line about "young people" getting screwed by Social Security. Social Security is a cradle-to-grave safety net, not just a retirement security program. The widow, orphan and disability components of Social Security are about 13% of the total program. Know a kid who lost a parent in grade school? They benefited from Social Security. A young healthy worker who suddenly becomes disabled? They benefit from Social Security. Even though it's hard to imagine retirement at age 67 when you cashing your first paycheck and see the Social Security taxes that are taken out it shouldn't be hard to look BACKWARDS and imagine how much it would suck if you Dad died when you were nine years old or if one of your working parents suddenly became disabled. You've already reaped the benefits of Social Security insurance if you make it to the age where you can work and pay taxes. The widow, orphan, and disability component of SS needs to be more a part of the debate -- young voters have already enjoyed the protection of Social Security insurance but they don't know it.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 15, 2008 4:21 PM

John McCain -- capable of devising bi-partisan solutions all by himself!

OMG! John McCain is "bi"!

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 4:23 PM

No, the people who would get screwed are the Generation X folks, who would lose benefits, have less time to make it up with private accounts, and be in their peak salary--and thus peak income tax--years when the transition costs for all this would be getting paid. And the theory isn't that we members of Generation X don't care about this mass transfer of wealth to the Boomers. The theory is that the Boomers can simply outvote us.

And then the Boomers will transfer that wealth to the Millennials, who match the Boomers in sheer numbers, not to mention sheer narcissism and self-aborption.

After all, DTM, it's easy to screw a generation that doesn't exist. Didn't you see the primary coverage where the media talked ad mauseum about how Hillary had the support of "voters over 50" and Obama had the support of "voters under 25"?

That big blank quarter-century space of Not Mentioned? That's us, babe. That's us.

Posted by zacksback | July 15, 2008 4:25 PM

The liars and cheats and their lackeys in the MSM have persuaded the under-30's that they're never going to see any money from Social Security anyway, so why should they care if McCain is going to abolish it? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-10-socsec-poll_x.htm

The easiest way to steal something is to persuade its owner that it's not worth anything.

Posted by Bloix | July 15, 2008 4:26 PM

The easiest way to steal something is to persuade its owner that it's not worth anything.

Or not worth anything anymore. See also: menopausal Boomer "pro-choice" Hillary supporters voting for anti-choice McCain.

Posted by zacksback | July 15, 2008 4:31 PM

The problem with eliminating social security for only the very youngest voters is that there is no constituency for this group.

The elderly get their benefits, so they're fine. They MAY have an interest in believing that the program should work the same for future generations.

The middle aged want to ensure that they get their benefits that they feel they've paid into the system, so they're untouchable. However, they don't have any particular interest in privatizing the program. They might not care whether Gen Y'ers have the same system at all.

So who's left to "fight for privatization"? Possibly Gen Yers, who have no personal stake in the system, could be convinced to demand privatization, believing it to be in their own self interest. However, this faction is WAY outnumbered by the Gen Xers, Boomers, and retirees, and they vote at lesser rates. Furthermore, this group is overwhelmingly on the side of the Democratic party, and they're not going to go along with a Republican privatization scheme.

So you can wait until they get older and start voting in greater numbers and maybe get a little more conservative.... at which time they're personally invested in the system and want to make sure that their benefits are paid out when they retire.

Rinse. Repeat.

Posted by Tyro | July 15, 2008 4:33 PM

See also: menopausal Boomer "pro-choice" Hillary supporters voting for anti-choice McCain.

Some of these people just want their "see, I told you" moment. They don't care about the country. Better to let it crash and burn for 4 more years so maybe Hillary can run in 2012.

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 4:34 PM

Social Security is a cradle-to-grave safety net, not just a retirement security program. The widow, orphan and disability components of Social Security are about 13% of the total program. Know a kid who lost a parent in grade school? They benefited from Social Security.

Precisely what happened to my girlfriend. I didn't realize this was a function of SS until I met her, actually. It's time for the Dems to rebrand the issue, because the Republicans have a good amount of ground on this issue. Time to start calling it by it's correct name: Old-age, Survivor's and Disability Insurance program.

Posted by socctty | July 15, 2008 4:34 PM

The liars and cheats and their lackeys in the MSM have persuaded the under-30's that they're never going to see any money from Social Security anyway, so why should they care if McCain is going to abolish it?

My wife and I have a financial planner who is just about exactly our age (28). In several meetings with him as he's helped us plan, he's told us that Social Security is "going away." I didn't make an issue of it because I'm fine with planning AS THOUGH it will go away.

But to think that it actually will is to fundamentally misunderstand American politics. This is THE most popular thing the government does. If it goes away, what good is the government?

Posted by Jake H. | July 15, 2008 4:35 PM

Actually it's the theory that most of us don't believe SS will be around for us ANYWAY so who the fuck cares?

Posted by MNPundit | July 15, 2008 4:36 PM

But to think that it actually will is to fundamentally misunderstand American politics. This is THE most popular thing the government does.

I don't really see why the right pushes so hard on this issue, actually. Maybe it's a "can't stand still on a moving train" issue with them, where they perceived government getting too big, or something. I doubt they're concerned with big government given their compliance with FISA.

Anyway, imagine if Social Security did go away, or was damaged in the process of being privatized, or something went wrong. There would be a huge cry for the government taking back over the program, and there'd be a socialist wave over the country and it would be the worst thing to happen to conservatism (or neoconservatism).

Posted by socctty | July 15, 2008 4:43 PM

I don't really see why the right pushes so hard on this issue, actually.

It is the single biggest potential pot of investment cash just waiting to be tapped. The GOP view is that it should be a government program that inflates demand for stock. All that cash chasing after a limited amount of stock would drive prices (and P/E ratios) up, creating profits out of nothing. Kinda' like the real estate boom/bust they just caused.

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 4:56 PM

Tyro,

The Boomers were supposedly going to benefit because not only would they get all their promised SS benefits, but their other retirement funds (e.g., in 401Ks) were going to go up as the money from the private accounts came pouring into the financial markets.

Posted by DTM | July 15, 2008 4:59 PM

At 37, I view Social Security as not only a portion of my own retirement, but also insurance against my in-laws moving in.

Posted by aatos | July 15, 2008 7:07 PM

At 37, I view Social Security as not only a portion of my own retirement, but also insurance against my in-laws moving in.

Posted by aatos | July 15, 2008 7:12 PM

The wealthy are getting a huge tax cut anyway. They are getting poorer very very very fast. A huge portion of the huge relative jump in wealth as measured the true way, by assets not income, has been based upon the flawed and corrupt financial system. The system was designed to inflate financial assets, traditional ones like stocks and a menagerie of newly invented ones. That's over now and with it this generation of wealthy ones is now going to shrink precipitously.

That isn't to say that their incomes have not been great too and the cratering of tax receipts is testament to how quickly their incomes are falling.

This week Treasury borrowing is increasing the defict by $19 billion. That's $11 billion more than anticipated by the experts two months ago. The deficit is now running at almost a trillion dollar a year pace. Uncle Sam is broke and getting broker.

Everything you hear the candidates say about government spending is pie in the sky. Everything. Everything you think you know about how things work is changing.

Posted by rapier | July 15, 2008 10:11 PM

"It is the single biggest potential pot of investment cash just waiting to be tapped. "

Or, to quote a character from Doonesbury: 'The pension fund was just sitting there!'.

This is the same faction which looted every private pension plan it could, and >$200 billiion of S&L money. Plus a few more hundred billion $ for this latest fiasco, and a couple of trillion for the Iraq War.

Posted by Barry | July 17, 2008 4:03 PM