Stop Baby Boomer Bashing: Protect Social Security and Medicare

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Stop Baby Boomer Bashing: Protect Social Security and Medicare
Alan Sterling supplements his $500 a month Social Security check with his independent oyster business. Baby boomers are worried about cuts in retirement benefits as the economy worsens. (Photo: Kathy Willens / AP)

    Remember all those headlines about how the baby boom cohorts just lost several trillion dollars in home equity due to the collapse of the housing bubble and how they lost trillions more in their retirement accounts as a result of the stock market crash? Most people probably don't remember those articles because most of the media have failed to notice the stories.

    This should have been an easy one for the media to see. The people who take the biggest loss when home prices plummet will be the people who have equity to lose. This will mean mostly older workers or people who are already retired, since these are the people who will most likely have paid off much or all of their mortgage.

    Similarly, the loss of stock wealth would have been concentrated among older workers and retirees. Few workers manage to accumulate any substantial stake in the stock market in their 20s or 30s. This means that loss when the stock market collapsed was almost entirely born by older workers and retirees.

    Given the massive loss of wealth incurred by the baby boom cohorts that are nearing retirement, it would be reasonable to think that President Obama and Congress are trying to develop plans to ensure that they can still enjoy a secure retirement. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case. There are reports President Obama is considering establishing tasks to examine Social Security and Medicare with an eye toward making cuts in both programs.

    However, there is one step that President Obama can take to boost the economy without going through Congress: He can reaffirm his support for Social Security and assure the baby boomers nearing retirement that he will not allow their benefits to be cut. If this huge cohort in their late 40s, 50s and early 60s knows that they can count on getting their promised benefits, they will feel more comfortable spending and supporting the economy at a time when it badly needs a boost.

    Workers are likely to be especially fearful about the prospects of getting their Social Security benefits now, due to an all out assault on the program financed by billionaire banker Peter Peterson. Peterson has spent much of the last two decades trying to cut Social Security, Medicare, and other benefits for the elderly. He recently contributed a billion dollars to a foundation bearing his name that is primarily committed to this goal.

    Peterson's investment has paid off both in exposure from the media and, more importantly, attention from many members of Congress and their staffers. There are now dozens of senators, members of Congress and staffers running all around Capitol Hill crafting creative new ways to cut Social Security. Baby boomers are right to fear that Peterson and his crew will take away their benefits.

    The idea of taking away Social Security benefits from baby boomers was always outrageous. After all, this is a generation that has paid into Social Security at the current 12.4 percent tax rate for almost their entire working life and will be forced to wait until age 66 or even 67 to get full benefits. Their average returns are projected to be lower than the generations that follow and far lower than the generations that preceded them.

    Even more importantly, because of the incompetence of Mr. Peterson's friends in the financial industry and the regulators and economists who could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble, the baby boom cohort has just experienced the largest loss of wealth of any age group in the history of the world. Much of the $8 trillion in lost housing bubble wealth belonged to the baby boomers, as did much of the $7 trillion in wealth lost in the stock market crash.

    The loss to the baby boomers is a gain to younger generations. They will, on average, be able to buy up the housing stock for prices that are 30 to 40 percent lower than what they would have faced three years ago. They will be able to buy the wealth of corporate America at a discount of more than 40 percent.

    If policy were responding to reality, then this massive redistribution from older generations to the young should cause the government to focus more attention on helping the elderly. But the agenda of Peter Peterson and his ilk never had anything to do with generational equity. The point was always to gut Social Security and Medicare. These programs stand out as key targets precisely because they are hugely effective and popular programs.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Progressive must insist that

Progressive must insist that any review of Social Security and Medicare should include a review of our nation's tax structure as a whole. Ever since payroll taxes were raised 26 years ago, the dividend and capital gains tax rate was decreased, and the AMT was amended to shield dividends and capitalgains from higher taxes, workers have born a greater share of the tax burden. Why are only Social Security and Medicare expected to be self-funding, with the burden placed only on workers? Programs such as SSI and Medicaid are essentially welfare, and should be funded via general income taxes, not taxes only on wage earners. If there is a specific tax to fund Social Security and Medicare, why not a specific tax on patents to fund the armies of FBI agents enforcing patent protections? Our taxes are being used to bail out financial institutions, and will be used to fund greater enforcement in the future. Why not a special tax on financial transactions for that purpose? Not only do we need to defend Social Security, we need to insist on greater fairness in our tax code.


Baby boomers have been

Baby boomers have been paying a portion of every paycheck to the federal government for social security insurance. The past generation received social security insurance having paid in nothing or a small fraction of what the baby boomers have paid in but now these same people, having borrowed against the money paid in for social security to fund wars and corporate welfare subsidies and bank bailouts and a rapacious health care industry, want to cut the insurance benefits in the years ahead. This is the same generation that passed legislation that has made it completely legal for corporate executives to loot pension funds and 401K funds and use the money to pay themselves huge bonuses and pay out dividends to stock holders where leaving employees penniless. This simply more class fraud on a national scale to steal from the middle class and poor to enrich an elite few, and to borrow with no intent to pay back, whether you are Bernard Maddoff or Ronald Reagan or George Bush is fraud. Least we forget 100% of the growth in the national debt has occurred during the Republican presidencies of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. In fact our last president, a classic overachiever, managed with the help of Congress to double the national debt over the past 8 years. $3 trillion for wars in the Middle East that benefit the arms dealers and energy companies, $1 trillion to bail out Wall Street speculators, and over $2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich, and surprise surprise not there does not seem to be enough money to repay the social security investments made by a generation over the past five decades. Where is the sense of shame? When will people start to realize that Republican and Democratic elite are together looting the Treasury and taking this country back to the robber baron days of the nineteenth century.


WTF is the matter with

WTF is the matter with people like Peter Peterson? Anyway, in times like these it seems quite obvious that Social Security is a great program, and that privatizing is an idea that can only be born of a very deranged mind. For very rich people to militate against a basic safety net boggles the mind.


Just a small quibble with an

Just a small quibble with an otherwise excellent, to the point, article. You can't really count housing values towards a person's worth because he isn't selling the house, he is living in it. For those who have paid or almost paid their mortgages, the fall in housing values really doesn't affect them other than, possibly, reducing their property taxes assuming that the present value of their properties is reflected in their assessments.


As long as every

As long as every congressman, and every pensioned member of the Obama administration is willing to take the same percentage cut as the Peterson goon squad wants to inflict on people who have paid their overly fair share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, we should be OK. But vigilance is required. Transparency - good. Let's be sure it occurs.


President Obama was not

President Obama was not elected by people who want to see Social Security and Medicare benefits cut. On the contrary, his support comes from voters who want universal health care and increased Social Security benefits. Peter Peterson and his friends didn't vote for Obama, and Obama ought not try to play to him and his constituency of over-indulge, over-privileged social criminals.


Given the huge deficits that

Given the huge deficits that will be the elephant in the living room for decades, the Boomers ought get used to having to surrender some of their entitlements and benefits. The point is to make that surrender gradual, to give lots of lead-time warning, and to make it commensurate with the sacrifices exacted from other trenches of the population. But to privilege the Boomers, to argue for completely protecting Boomer entitlements is as unwise and as unfair as picking on them to right the economy's woes. Oh, and I am retired and do expect to have my generation's benefits cut. That's the sin tax we have to pay for the Bush years.


Anonymous in typical idiot

Anonymous in typical idiot fashion utters; Programs such as SSI and Medicaid are essentially welfare, and should be funded via general income taxes, not taxes only on wage earners.NEWSFLASH Moron, Social Security Checks are not posted until the 3rd of the month for a very definitive reason...show of hands, anyone? That 3 days interest Social Security Checks earn FULLY funds SSI and Medicaid every month, there-in lies the biggest problem in America STUPIDITY!


Peter Peterson seems to be a

Peter Peterson seems to be a classic case of "I've got mine; to hell with you." His rabid opposition to Social Security and Medicare is incomprehensible otherwise. We need to remind our elected reps very specifically that we can vote them OUT of office as well as IN, and that for most of us, SS and Medicare are absolutely essential. As for Peterson, may he get the hottest rocks in hell to sit on.


Hey people, you can't have

Hey people, you can't have guns and butter, not in this economy anyway! The President is probably going to raid Social Security (they got a $2.5 trillion surplus) to pay for his wars (Iraq,Afghanistan, etc., his 11 billion dollar presidential Marine helicopters, the bank bailout, and on and on. We need to stop him on his gorging of guns (we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined and we're easily defeated by people wearing cheap explosives). The military-corporate complex is running/ruining this country. Stop them!


What's missing from this

What's missing from this piece is what issue Peterson's foundation is raising: That right now, our national debt is not as high as it could be because the government has been taking the Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs. When the boomers retire, this is no longer an option, and the national debt will skyrocket. David Walker, the ex-comptroller general of the US, computed in 2008 that, under the current rules, the US's actual national debt with the promises of Social Security and the three parts of Medicare (A, B, & D) factored in is, as of right now, $56 TRILLION. That's $184,000 per person in the US, including children. So what's needed is a safety net that protects the poor and elderly, but doesn't bankrupt the country. Hence the need for comprehensive reform and single-payer health care! Medicare costs are at least $35 trillion of that $56 trillion total!


The government has already

The government has already spent the Baby Boomers Social Security. Suck it up.


Pete Peterson and his ilk

Pete Peterson and his ilk need their tax rates raised to 45% with absolutely no deductions, credits, or loopholes. this should be the top tax rate for EVERYONE making over $5 million dollars per year. Our budget would be balanced very quickly, and if someone can't live on $2.5 million dollars based on a yearly income of $5 million, I don't feel any pity whatsoever, as I have to live on a salary of $50 thousand per year. A truly progressive flat tax would solve the budget and revenue problems. Here it is: $1 million to $5 million would be taxed at 40%, $500 thousand to $1 million 35%, $250 thousand to $500 thousand 30%, $100 thousand to $250 thousand 25%, $50 thousand to $100 thousand 20%, $25 thousand to $50 thousand 15%, and anything less 10%. This tax structure would be fair to everyone and fund medicare and social security completely, as well as any other socially viable public programs.


David says that Peterson is

David says that Peterson is raising the issue that our national debt will skyrocket when the Boomers retire because the government has been raiding Social Security for decades to pay for other programs. All the more reason that Social Security should be protected; if they had kept their paws off SS, there'd be a big enough trust fund to carry us through. The government stole our SS contributions: they owe that money to us. Fortunately, not all Boomers will retire at once; we have about 20 years before the entire cohort reaches retirement age. We can raise taxes, extend the retirement age somewhat, and take other steps to balance it out, but Peterson and his gang of wealthy thugs can all go straight to hell, IMO.


What's next? Soylent Green?

What's next? Soylent Green? People like Petersen are like Cartman on South Park. They get to the top by having no concept of morality. They found early on that it's easy to cheat people who trust you. You lose a lot of friends, but there are always more friends. If he had his druthers he would turn the Boomers into fuel. And the poor. The crony capitalists screwed this all up and the only easy money left is the 2 Trillion in IOUs in the lock box. James Galbraith says we should do the opposite of Petersen. We should have a payroll tax holiday for employees and employers and have the govt pick up the bill until we can recover. We should also give MORE money to the elderly because they will spend it now. Their retirement money has been wiped out by people who think like Petersen. A trading transaction tax will bring in 150 B. Raising the top marginal rate to Reagan's rate of 50% would be a start. We should really raise it back up to where it was during our most productive period of time 1951-1963 under Ike. That rate was 92%. Heck even Nixon's top rate was 70%. And that should be for investment income as well. Oh yeh, and the 761 military bases. Close most of them. Gobs of money around. Gobs.


Many good points here, both

Many good points here, both in the editorial and the comments. I have a question: Is it true that the $29 billion request for nuclear weapons fro 2009 and under previous administration falls in the Dept. of Energy? We know already that the cost of the wars is separated from Defense Budget. Then there is the infamous f22 we get to buy. Now for equity losses for those either retired or close to it. Many considered their home an investment and a place to raise the kids. Their plan was to sell the larger home and go smaller. Do you remember the real estate ads of a short time ago: "Empty Nesters..." Now many so-called empty nesters have their young back in the nest and may still have elderly parents for which they help care. So, now their savings are being eaten much faster than planned. I for one would be willing to cut back on my SS payments if I could designate where the money goes. It would not be for star-war missile silos nor for over-bloated contracts for planes that don't work. It would be to help with education and health of the "children and grandchildren" I supposedly am "cannibalizing".


Upon reading "A Citizen's

Upon reading "A Citizen's Guide" by the Peter G Peterson Foundation, I discovered a nice chart on page 24. The chart is entitled "What You Can Do as Individuals". Great advice that my family has followed for 30 years now. Guess What. We didn't need the guide but what we now know is no matter how much we did what we thought was common sense we are still in trouble.


More on topic, please.

More on topic, please. URGENT. To supplement this article on Social Security (yes, pun intended), I urge folks to read the blog entries of the late John L. Hess, journalist who did commentary on Pacifica Station in NYC, WBAI and his blog is still online. www.johnlhess.blogspot.com For years, the argument was that "greedy geezers" were taking money away from younger folks and John Hess pointed out that it was nonsense and that nothing was/is wrong with Social Security. That is how they will again attack it. William Greider has a scary article in two spots online ontopic: will Pres. Obama protect Social Security as the destroyers whisper in his ear. Remember the Orwellian language games the social security/medicare destroyers use to attempt to trick the public (who has not yet been fooled).


Why doesn't anyone talk

Why doesn't anyone talk about the fact that both Social Security and Medicare are both funded by their own separate taxes? Since both of these programs are funded through their own tax structure, there is simply no valid reason to even consider cutting them. The reason that people like Mr. Peterson, the ultra-wealthy, want to destroy Social Security and Medicare is because all of the money that has been stolen from the Trust Funds will eventually have to be repaid and this is something they are loath to do. This is particularly galling because both programs have been funded by a regressive tax that placed most of the burden on the middle class, since there has always been a ceiling on how much income has been subject to these taxes.


it is tragic that so many

it is tragic that so many commenters here don't understand how Social Security works. essentially it is not welfare, it is not an investment fund. it is insurance for workers paid for by workers, managed by the government by "pay as you go" to protect it from inflation and to provide PROGRESSIVE payout to protect against poverty in old age. it is not broke. it can never be broke. the Trust Fund is not social security. the trust fund was always intended to run out of money after it paid for the boomer retirement. it was created by "excess" taxes on the boomers. Walker's horrible future deficit story is a fraud. You need to learn what is going on and try to stop it. social security, as it exists today, is the best friend working people ever had. they are trying to take it away from you.


Most of this column is

Most of this column is spot-on, except for the contention that the young "will be able to buy the wealth of corporate America at a discount of more than 40 percent." Not if they don’t have the cash! They can only “buy up” assets if they have money available to do so. The price of a share of stock is irrelevant to younger workers who are often just scraping by—without savings, or lines of credit, or stable jobs, or healthcare… This price deflation is great for the wealthy, though, who dream of a new gilded age. They can use their capital gains from the previous bubbles to buy up the homes, 401(k)s, and other possessions of the unemployed, bankrupt, and desperate families who can no longer maintain a middle-class lifestyle. The young, who don’t tend to have such assets, will likely not be benefiting from the fire sale.


Peterson & his ilk have been

Peterson & his ilk have been railing against SS since it was initiated in 1935, and against Medicare even more vehemently since the 1960s. The unspoken issue for them is the huge pool of annual deposits to the Treasury in the payroll taxes that fund both programs. The Wall Street greed-heads -- of which Peterson is definitely one -- have sought to eliminate these programs for years, substituting "privatized" programs over funds of which they would have control. Same bunch that has driven the economy into the ditch is ginning up the effort to get their grubby paws on that pile of cash, now that they've blown their previous wad on their casino capitalism spree. Despite Peterson's pious pronouncements about his "concern" for the future of America, his GENUINE concern is for Pete Peterson's continued wealth and ego. A ravening wolf in sheep's clothing. Just imagine where the economy would now be if these Wall Street/bankster theives-in-broad-daylight had had their mitts on the SS/Medicare money for the last 30 years! That sure would have worked out just hunky-dory, now wouldn't it?