Trumka Says Strengthen Social Security

Run time: 05:02 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYFFYhDwobw   Posted on YouTube: July 29, 2010 By YouTube Member: AmericasFuture Views on YouTube: 256   Posted on DU: July 30, 2010 By DU Member: Omaha Steve Views on DU: 320

 

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/07/29/coalition-launches-dr... /

by Mike Hall, Jul 29, 2010

AFL-CIO Media Outreach fellow Jennifer Angarita contributed to this report.

As Social Security turns 75 years old Aug. 14, the nation’s most successful social program likely will be under attack by the federal budget deficit commission, which, by all accounts, is considering benefits cuts and raising the retirement age.

Today, more than 60 groups, including the AFL-CIO, announced the creation of the coalition Strengthen Social Security…Don’t Cut It. The group is launching a major mobilization to push back the commission’s phony assertions, backed by the Wall Street spin machine, that claim Social Security is a major component of the budget deficit and is teetering on the brink of disaster.

In a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the group outlined plans to build support in Congress to fight benefits cuts and press candidates this election to pledge to fight any move to raise the retirement age or privatization scheme. Says Ed Coyle, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans:

The Strengthen Social Security campaign unites everyone here to improve—not weaken—Social Security. We are united against any cuts in benefits, such as increases in the retirement age, and to any form of privatization of Social Security.

We will stand united if the commission calls for any cuts to Social Security. We are launching a major lobbying campaign for Congress to block their recommendations.

Speaking at the press conference, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that raising the retirement age is:

a benefit cut, plain and simple. It is a cut that is unnecessary and one that Americans can ill-afford.

He also says it unfairly singles out workers in demanding physical occupations,

workers like my father who spent his life in the mines and couldn’t work another day by the time he qualified for Social Security—and those older workers who may no longer be able to find work due to age discrimination.

FULL story at link.

is that they know a lot of us will die before SSI kicks in @ 70,
unless you have a butt load of cash and don't really need it.
But the people without a butt load of cash can fuck off, what a sad fucking
way die.
This is death without a panel , Oh god , please send me a silver spoon.

from the speech:

"At a time when retirement is less secure for working Americans than it has been in many generations, only Social Security remains a defined and stable retirement benefit — not to mention the important family protections it provides when a worker is injured or dies. Unions know exactly what is happening to retirement income in this country because we see it at the bargaining table. Fewer traditional pensions. More riskier 401(k) plans — not a great benefit for workers with stagnant incomes who find it difficult or impossible to save. Now is the time, to strengthen, not weaken, Social Security.

Raising the eligibility age for a full Social Security benefit would be disastrous for millions of Americans. It is a benefit cut, plain and simple. It is a cut that is unnecessary and one that Americans can ill-afford."

It's a very serious problem. Here is why?

If your employer lays you off because you are over 60 and you sue and win, the employer's damages will be figured based on the wages you would have earned had you stayed employed.

Most likely, the employer will argue that even though you were laid off due to your age, you should be able to get another job pretty quickly. That's true for a younger person. But older people are first to be laid off and last to be hired. So the older person is likely to be unemployed for an even longer period of time than a younger person.

Raising the age for Social Security would be a big mistake for everyone. It would also hurt employers. Face it. Some older people even in white collar jobs are no longer physically or mentally able to work. It is a minority, but these people exist. If you try to keep them in the workforce, you create a nightmare for the employees and their employers. Social Security benefits at 65 is appropriate.

Social Security only pays on average a little over $1000 per month. That is not enough money to motivate people to quit work. When people go on Social Security at 65 it is because they are not welcome in their work, they have actually been fired, they have some physical problem that is making their work difficult for them, they need to take care of an aging or ailing family member or they have plenty of income from some other source and would quit working even if they didn't have the small amount of extra Social Security income.

And, for those of you who may not know this: You can check this out because I may be wrong, but I believe that while a portion of the Social Security is not taxable (maybe half of the average $12,000 to $14,000 you get per year, all your income including the rest of your Social Security is taxable if the total is over a certain amount. So it is untrue that Social Security is not subject to tax. Only a portion of it does not count as taxable income. That is my understanding.

Hopefully, this will open the eyes of many Americans who think that Unions are evil.
It is pathetic to look at the economy and the tax rates just over the last 40 years. Anyone can see the direct connection between lowering taxes on the wealthiest (5% at most) Americans and the crumbling of our economy.
IF.."we" (LOL) would just reinstate the tax rates of the 1950's, Social Security, unemployment, extreme health care prices, etc... would vanish quickly.
I beg all of you to look at the evident connection between lowering taxes for the wealthy (I am not talking $250,000 being the ceiling for taxes) and the death of the "middle class."
All politicians know this, but they are after votes and currently that takes money.
If America would make all elections, "publicly financed", we would save money and prioritize our country in a short period. Social Security could easily be strengthened then...

Thank you for saying what we will not hear on the M$M.

As part of the overall strategy Labor and other socially minded civic organizations should be advocating for a reduction in the retirement age simultaneously with an overall cost of living increase in monthly benefits that more accurately reflects the real cost of living and both should be argued as economic stimulus.

A reduction in the retirement age, say to 60 or even 55 years, would improve the employment numbers by opening up jobs to younger workers while at the same time add significant meaning and purpose to the "golden years." Especially for those workers in dangerous and physically demanding jobs. How many 60 or 65 year old construction workers do you know? As Brother Trumka said, "my father retired the day he reached 65 because he could not go on." Earlier retirement means a longer overall life span and quality of life. And a genuine increase in the monthly benefit that more closely reflects the true cost of living will add immediate stimulus to the economy through increased spending by retirees. I don't think many retirees set aside a sum from their monthly pittance for savings, instead any increase is spent meeting immediate needs like food, utilities and housing.

The current strategy, as layed out by Brother Trumka, is self limiting in that it does not actually strengthen Socail Security but confines the program to its current levels with respect to retirement age and monthly benefit levels and thus leaves the door open to a compromise that will actually diminish benefits. And any compromise will leave those of us who support Social Security thinking we've achieved some sort of victory over the forces of capitalist greed.