A broad coalition of groups has been formed to defend Social Security, and the videos announcing it are all worth watching. Of all the ideas proposed, my personal favorite comes from AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee: A new reality show starring the people who want to cut Social Security. He suggests having John Boehner, billionaire benefit-cut advocate Peter G. Peterson, and Deficit Commission chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles live for a year on the average Social Security benefit of $14,000.
"They won't get a COLA (cost of living increase," says McEntee, "but they'll still have to deduct $100 a month for Medicare Part B and still have to pay $200 a month for Medigap insurance." (The video of his comments is below.)
Great idea, Mr. McEntee! Mr. Peterson should be more than happy to take you up on your offer. He likes games, having funded one called "Deficitball."(1) Alan Simpson seems like a playful sort of fellow, too. It sounds a lot like I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!, where the famous and well-to-do are dropped in a jungle and forced to do icky things like eat bugs and snakes. But in this case the jungles will be our own cities and towns and contestants are more likely to eat Purina than piranha.
But why limit ourselves to only four contestants? Why not invite those Senators who have pushed for these sorts of cuts, too, like the senior Senator from California? Dianne Feinstein, come on down! And let's not exclude economists like Alice Rivlin, a member of the Simpson/Bowles Commission who wants to cut benefits for all the wrong reasons. Let's meet our newest contestant! Dr. Rivlin thinks it's "absurdly unlikely" that "widows living on the edge of subsistence" will have their benefits cut - but then, she doesn't tell us where she thinks that edge lies.
That's a shame because, as women, our last two contestants will be asked to survive on less than the men. The average Social Security benefit for older women is $11,900, so that's what our female contestants will receive. Unfair? you say. Outrageous? Sure it is, but this is a "reality show" and that's the reality.
"When do you think they'll stop calling for benefit cuts?" asks McAfee. "Probably in the first episode." He's probably right. Chances are that our contestants live in pleasant communities, surrounded by the nearness of family and friends. That'll be the first thing to change. There may be tearful farewells to children and grandchildren and lifelong friends, as our contestants move to urban slums or the distant and fading outposts of the American dream.
Our next dose of reality: Our male contestants will be living on $1,166 each month, and the women will have $991. After those premiums are subtracted they'll have $866 or $691 for all their monthly needs. (And let's hope they don't have out-of-pocket medical expenses.) Rent? Food? Transportation? These amounts will have to cover everything. Our contestants may not know what it's like to live like this, but here's their first lesson: Monthly budgets are too long-term when you're subsisting at this level. If they're lucky enough to pay no more than $500 per month for rent and utilities, our male contestants will now have $85 per week for all other expenses and the women will have $44.27.
Is our reality show "real" enough for you yet, contestants? Are we "living on the edge of subsistence" yet? Eating bugs and snakes for a few weeks is probably starting to look pretty good by comparison.
What would we call this reality show? Survivor? The name's been taken. The Real World? Taken. Extreme Makeover? That one's taken too. American Chopper? Not quite right, although would be a good name for what the Deficit Commission is trying to do right now with our benefits.
Here's the reality: Generations of Americans benefited from a three-legged system that ensured their financial security in old age. The first was the pension system, which has been gutted by employers. The second was savings and personal assets, which for most households have been decimated in the last several years. And now the only remaining leg, Social Security, is under attack.
"It's not a benefit cut," proponents claim. "We just want to raise the retirement age." But many people who live in the reality show we call "life" can't work until we're seventy. Their jobs are physically demanding, or there aren't any jobs to be had. Raising the retirement age means less money for them. (Of course, it also means less money over a lifetime for those who retire at seventy, too.) Social Security's the most conservatively managed, financially stable public program we have. It has survived multiple economic downturns. Its greatest threat right now comes from our would-be contestants.
Some deficit cutters will promise that lower-income people will not see benefit cuts. But any cuts will break the covenant under which workers have paid payroll taxes for a lifetime. And the question remains: Where will you cut? If you say you won't do it for people living on $44 per week, what about those whose total income adds up to $65 a week? $75? $100? What will satisfy you? And what assurances will we have that you won't break your promise again someday?
When it comes to tampering with Social Security, millions of Americans are already living the reality we just described. The next one to "play" it may be the teacher who taught you to read, or the nurse that brought you back to health ... or your mother and father ... or you. Hey, look! The show's about to begin. Some of the faces look awfully familiar .. .
Hey, America! It's time to meet our newest contestants!
____________________________________
(1) I thought "Budgetball" sounded like a cross between The Fountainhead and Death Race 2000, but if Peterson plays this game I promise to reconsider.
(click here to send a message to every Washington politician on the campaign trail: Hands off Social Security!)
(The reality show remarks occur at 2:30.)
____________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Loading comments…
This really sums it up! If we don't fight back we will end up destitute and without any remedy. That's why Soc. Sec. was started - to avoid such an outcome! For the love of Pete, when will the sleeping giant (us) finally wake up and stop this attack?!?! Bush considered it his "greatest failure" to not have privatized Soc. Sec. - that should have gotten everyone's attention but didn't - wasn't it scary enough for everyone? This year, no cost of living increase, again why aren't people going after their representa
For instance, maybe people who have personal incomes of...say..
Why? Because the very purpose of Social Security is to provide basic living expenses for those of US who need them after we can no longer work, not to give rich folks extra money to waste however they want.
The idea that they deserve it because they paid into it appeals only to the most selfish, heartless and greedy. By that rationale, they would only get police, fire and utilities they pay for as individual
The very idea of civilizati
Right?
http://buy
They would cut benefits from a self-funde
Ok, here is one:
Rich peoplel getting social security checks, "that's wrong".
Maybe I missed it again, but I still don't think you answered my basic point. (And judging from the other comments here, I'm not the only one). Maybe you're talking too much "inside baseball" for me. I'm not a policy wonk, so you need to speak in plain English.
Where do you come down on making sure only people who really need Social Security get it? And as JB would say, "Please, please, please" don't speak in code.
OK?
http://buy
BTW: I'm about as far away from Pete Peterson and his clichés as humanly possible. So answer my point instead of using Pete as your easily beaten-dow
The average male on SS receives $1,166 each month, and the woman $991 to live on every month.
And this is not "free" money. Its paid for by working for decades and investing in the system.
Its OUR MONEY, our safety net, and some sleeze bags in D.C. have been drooling for years to sacrifice it to Wall St.
The gaggle of clueless blowhards clearly is powered by Wall Street greed, and not any interest at all in the welfare of US citizens. The same powers that destroyed the middle class are now turning attention to those no longer able to work for income. The demise of structured pensions, the destructio
We should remove the cap on income on which the SS tax is paid (for Medicare too!), and means test Social Security. Fat-cats like the people on this commission
The one thing I find interestin
So who knows what they're talking about here. My guess is TheReturn.
"Welfare handouts" ----- you mean like the tax breaks corporatio
You mean the handouts to mining companies and oil companies?
You mean the handouts to Wall St.?!
They are obviously not interested in representi
How will we ever be represente
Maybe obama can be one of the judges as the whole *let 'em cat food* commission was his idea.
has always produced bills that are good. They get stalled or blocked in the Senate, but that is
not her doing. Watch what she does, not what the people who want her defeated says. They are
scared to death of her.
People are right. Everyone has to keep on raising cain because this is where that Commission
sure seems to be heading. People on this commission started harping on SS, Medicare, and
Medicaid cuts right out of the starting gate. Itr seems to me they call in Economists from the Right Wing and it drives me mad. Where is the likes of Paul Krugman?
They talk about needing jobs but they refuse to consider that we need to stop giving corporatio
Give the conservati
they always claim they want....
obtaining a receipt for the supposed value. For instance,I have heard of people who run around collecting clothing and goods from people who do not itemize and then giving it to charities and using it as a tax evasion, or they get a receipt for a very inflated figure when it item may be almost worthless. There are many examples of cheating on deductions
Not on my watch. That goes for ANY Democrat' as well, who in anyway aids and abets the gutting of this most durable and worthwhile safety net.
http://www
have been blessed and you have helped your fellow man. I tell all the young people I know that they must learn to be interested in their government and participat
Further, I heard one of the Commisione
to buy back the Treasury Notes for SS, the deficit amount on that money will be doubled." Why is that? I assume it is the treatment of SS in the government books that has been going on for years. So, that is where the idea is posed to make people thinki SS Trust Fund is broke.