Obama Pulling Out the Old Social Security Scare Tactic
You can count on Democratic presidential candidates to haul out Medi-scare or Social Security scare tactics every presidential year.
While speaking to a group of people in an assisted living center (read senior citizens) Obama claimed John McCain would reduce their Social Security payments or cut back on their cost of living raises if elected.
Obama said McCain would push to raise the retirement age for collecting Social Security benefits or trim annual cost-of-living increases. Obama has rejected both ideas as solutions to the funding crisis projected for Social Security in favor of making higher-income workers pay more into the system.
“We have to protect Social Security for future generations without pushing the burden onto seniors who have earned the right to retire in dignity,” he said.
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds accused Obama of making “misinformed partisan attacks.”
“John McCain has been clear about his belief that we must fix Social Security for future generations and keep our promises to today’s retirees, but raising taxes should not be the answer to every problem,” Bound said.
We all agree something has to be done to protect the Social Security retirement program or there will be none for our children and grandchildren. But, having a certain percentage of one’s already withholding amount put into a private plan (such as what the government workers get) is not going to take away from those already on Social Security or about to be on Social Security.
Instead of allowing private citizens to get the same kind of retirement benefits federal and state workers get the Democrats would rather the senior citizens of this country get barely enough to subsist if that is their sole income.
If you put money into a 401(k) plan at a young age and don’t touch it you will have a comfortable life after retirement. That’s all President Bush ever proposed: allow the younger workers to put 1 or 2% of their FICA withholding into a private plan managed by the government (that’s an oxymoron) and the rest would go into Social Security.
With people working past age 65 now, and a lot because they want to, raising the age for full social security benefits to 67 or 68 or even 70 is not so unreasonable. FDR used the age of 65 because back when he was in office the life expectancy was not that high and he figured that would keep the program solvent. Life expectancy has risen and so should the age for full social security benefits. You still have the option of taking reduced payments at age 62, and how many people do you know who actually wait until they are 65? I suggest the government employees be required to contribute to social security or private citizens be allowed the same benefit as a government employee.
This scare tactic has been proven false time and time again since Reagan first ran for president, and Obama is using the same bag of tricks. Let’s just hope our senior citizens are smarter than they were 28 years ago.
Shame on Obama for scaring the senior citizens this way.
Written by ~J~
David M. Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pmVisit David M.
I was grabbed by your retirement age paragraph in particular. I’m 60 on Mar 26th and don’t have retirement plans at all. I am in a profession where I can cut back instead of retiring and I know a lot of attorneys who are still working in their 80’s. Forgive the cliche, but age really is just a number. It’s health that matters and we are living longer and maintaining better health. I know that financially we make more money if we take social security earlier, but I’ll want greater monthly income, so I’ll probably wait and take it later. If I’m still working, I don’t need it just because an arbitrary number says I’m entitled to it. So, I’m likely to be one of those Americans who wait as long as possible to maximum the monthly income instead of the lifetime income. My plan isn’t the best for everyone, but it makes the most sense to me and my life.
Sue Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 7:45 pmVisit Sue
We are one of those had no choice but to contribute (heavily I might add) to a government pension. Now government employees are required to pay into social security, but even though there were many years of work quarters where we paid FICA taxes, (non government employment), our check is markedly smaller due to the pension from the civil service years.
We did not take our Social Security either at 62 as it would have meant an even larger cut in benefits. Besides which hubby still is working so it would have made no difference as in David’s case.
I don’t know of many of our friends who took their SS early due to the penalty but if you are financially able to retire and live comfortably then I am all for taking the extended years of benefits.