>Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT) >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >From: John Gear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Letter in Support of Social Security >X-Comment: Corporate Welfare Discussion > >Note that this calls for people to sign on as individuals. If you support >the principles included, you might want to add your name to the list. The >faux debate over Social Security "privatizing" (plundering would be a >better term) is a great example of Thomas Pynchon's observation that "If >they can get you asking the wrong questions they don't have to worry about >the answers." > >Excerpt from below: >>And many believe the Cato >>Institute blast-faxes telling reporters that "privatizing at >>least a portion of Social Security is now pretty much a >>foregone conclusion." > >That's typical of the tactics of those who can't stand to see a debate on >the merits of a question--they declare victory early and often, hoping to >preclude a real examination of the question thereby. (If only there were >sex involved in the Social Security privatization scam--then perhaps the >press would be interested in really looking into the question.) > >>The following is from Roger Hickey, Campaign for America's Future. >>September 17, 1998 >> >>Dear leaders of organizations and policy experts: >> >> We are writing because you and your organization are >>strong supporters of the Social Security system. We suspect >>that, like the rest of us, you are concerned that the debate >>about the future of America's most important retirement and >>social insurance system has been overly dominated by what the >>New York Times recently described as "conservative groups, Wall >>Street executives, and other proponents of turning Social >>Security into a vehicle for investing in stocks and bonds." >> >> We believe it is time for supporters of Social Security >>to speak out -- to demonstrate that there is a large and >>growing group of leaders and experts who want to fix Social >>Security without "privatizing" or dismantling it. >> >> Attached you will find a Statement of Principles >>designed to guide discussion of Social Security reform. We ask >>you to sign the statement -- as an individual, with >>organization and title to be listed only for identification >>purposes in the final document -- and fax the attached form >>back to us as soon as possible. Then sometime in September or >>October -- when we have gathered an impressive group of signers >>-- we will conduct a press conference to release the statement >>of principles and to announce a new alliance for Social >>Security in the new century. >> >>By releasing this statement we believe we can send a message -- >>and generate new coverage for progressive solutions -- while >>answering the media's persistent question about who opposes >>privatization. We believe that we can accomplish this without >>getting into a level of policy detail you may not be >>comfortable with. We see this new effort as an extension of >>our Social Security Information Project, which has encouraged >>citizen leaders and experts to work together with others to >>educate the public, policymakers and the press without locking >>anyone into a formal coalition structure. >> >> The good news is that, now that many 'privatization' >>plans are on the table, careful analysis shows that they all >>carry serious drawbacks: large and painful cuts in benefits; >>increases in the retirement age; greater financial risk, >>especially for the poor, for people of color, and for women; >>serious undermining of the survivors' benefits and disability >>aspects of the current system; expensive overhead, profits and >>administrative costs, far above the current system or a >>collective investment system (like that of former Social >>Security commissioner Robert Ball). These problems with >>privatization have been underscored by work by the Center on >>Budget and Policy Priorities, the Economic Policy Institute, >>the Century Foundation, OWL, the Institute for Women's Policy >>Research, by Henry Aaron, Robert,Reischauer, and others from >>Brookings, and by leading scholars in academia,,such as Alicia >>Munnell of Boston College and MIT's Peter Diamond. As a >>result, the intellectual case against privatization is getting >>stronger. And new polling shows that, when most people of all >>ages understand the trade-offs, they reject privatization. >> >> The bad news is that the media -- and many Members of >>Congress -- still need a lot of education. The Washington Post >>reports that political momentum is building for some form of >>'privatization' of Social Security. And many believe the Cato >>Institute blast-faxes telling reporters that "privatizing at >>least a portion of Social Security is now pretty much a >>foregone conclusion." >> >> We have much work to do. First, we must join together >>to gain national attention for a new progressive alliance to >>defend and strengthen Social Security. Simultaneously, between >>now and the November elections, we must reach the American >>people with a message about the serious downsides -- benefit >>cuts, extra costs and increased risk -- inherent in the various >>privatization plans. The other consensus message that deserves >>repeating is that big tax cuts are incompatible with "Saving >>Social Security First." By going public aggressively and >>educating the press and the public, the opponents of >>privatization can become a force to be reckoned with before the >>large White House conference on Social Security planned for >>December. During the upcoming months of work we can also gain >>public attention for a variety of progressive proposals for >>fixing Social Security's long-term financing problem while >>strengthening, rather than undermining, the essential >>progressive features described in the Statement of Principles. >> >> All of this work must, of necessity, be carried out in >>a decentralized fashion by a variety of leaders, experts and >>organizations, each of which has different missions, mandates, >>and limitations on activities. The alliance we propose here >>will respect those differences. We will not impose a formal >>structure of "positions" on anyone. If we can achieve >>consensus and go public around the enclosed principles, we will >>be able to get the world's attention. All educational >>activities after that will be carried out by our individual >>organizations and leaders, joining together only when >>appropriate. >> >> Please fax back the attached form to Tom Matzzie at >>America's Future to add your name to the statement. We will >>get back to you about plans for its public release. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Roger Hickey >>Campaign for America's Future >> >>Julian Bond >>NAACP >> >>Gerald M. Shea >>Assistant to the President >>AFL-CIO >> >>Robert Greenstein >>Center on Budget and Policy Priorities >> >>Heidi Hartmann >>Institute for Women's Policy Research >> >>Hans Riemer >>2030 Center >> >>Paul Marchand >>The Arc, >>and Chair Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities >> >>Steve Protulis >>National Council of Senior Citizens >> >>Deborah Briceland-Betts >>OWL (Older Women's League) >>===================== >>A Statement of Principles >>for a New Century Alliance >>to Protect and Strengthen Social Security >> >>Social Security is vital to millions of Americans. For over >>sixty years Social Security's core retirement, disability and >>survivors benefits have kept generations of people out of >>poverty and provided a secure base for middle class retirement. >>Most Americans will depend upon its portable, progressive and >>guaranteed retirement benefits and its social insurance >>protections to provide at least half of their income. We must >>all work to ensure that Americans of all ages will continue to >>be protected by Social Security from serious loss of income >>because of old age, disability or the death of a family's wage >>earner. >> >>Congress and the President should work to strengthen the >>finances of Social Security for future generations. >>'Privatization' proposals to shift a portion of Social Security >>taxes to private investment accounts would inevitably require >>large cuts in Social Security's core defined benefits and >>make retirement income overly dependent on the risks of the >>stock and bond markets. >> >>We join together to insist that Social Security's central role >>in family income protection must not be compromised, and we >>endorse the following principles for Social Security reform: >> >>* Social Security's core benefits should remain universal and >>portable, guaranteeing monthly benefits that provide a decent >>income and are adjusted to keep up with inflation, for as long >>as you live. >> >>* Social Security must continue to provide risk-free disability >>insurance protection for workers and their dependents. It must >>also continue to provide survivors insurance for spouses and >>children of deceased workers, as well as continuing to provide >>benefits for those adults with severe disabilities who are >>dependents or survivors of their parents. These >>crucial insurance functions must continue without harmful >>benefit reductions. >> >>* Beneficiaries who earned higher wages during their worklife >>should continue to receive benefits related to their earnings >>history, and Social Security should continue to replace a >>larger share of low-income workers' past earnings as a >>protection against poverty. >> >>* We must take care that the impact of changes in the Social >>Security system not fall disproportionately on lower income >>groups, or on those whose worklife has been physically >>demanding. Any changes should not make the financing of Social >>Security any less progressive. >> >>* Many privatization proposals finance the cost of private >>accounts partly by increasing the retirement age. Raising the >>age at which people can collect benefits is the equivalent of a >>benefit cut, with especially onerous impacts on those in >>physically challenging jobs or on groups with lower life >>expectancy. >> >>* Basic benefit protections for women -- who have lower >>lifetime earnings and more workforce absences because of care >>giving for children, parents or spouses -- should be preserved >>and strengthened. >> >>* While Social Security should continue as the foundation of >>our social insurance and retirement system, we also need new >>policies to encourage employers to provide good pensions and to >>spur private savings. But this should be done in addition to, >>rather than at the expense of, the existing Social Security >>benefit structure. >> >>* Private accounts should not be substituted for Social >>Security's current core defined benefits. Diversion of Social >>Security tax revenues to pay for private investment accounts >>makes the projected long term Social Security financing >>problems more severe, forcing deep benefit cuts, such as large >>increases in the retirement age, and weakens the system's >>ability to follow the principles above. Social Security >>benefits should not be subject to market fluctuations. >> >>* We should save Social Security first, instead of using budget >>surpluses to pay for tax cuts. >>==================================== >> >>Please return this form to: >> >>Tom Matzzie >>Campaign for America's Future >>1025 Connecticut Ave., NW; Suite 205 >>Washington, DC 20036 >>FAX (202) 955-5606 >>PHONE (202) 955-5665 >>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>Sign-On Sheet >> >>Yes. I agree to sign this statement of principles to guide >>Social Security reform. I sign as an individual, with the >>understanding that my organization and title will be listed for >>identification purposes only. >> >> >>Name: >> >>Organization >> >>Title >> >>Date: >> >>Address Line 1: >> >>Address Line 2: >> >>City, State and Zip Code: >> >>E-mail Address: >> >> >>Please note that America's Future has a new address and phone >>numbers. >> >>1025 Connecticut Ave., NW; Suite 205 >>Washington, DC 20036 >>FAX (202) 955-5606 >>PHONE (202) 955-5665 > > >John Gear > >The BILL OF RIGHTS > The Original Contract with America > Beware of Imitations; Accept No Substitutes; Insist on the Genuine Articles >(send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for info on t-shirts w/ this imprint) >
