Another Outrage: Pushing Back Social Security Benefits
Friday 15 October 2010
by: Rick Wolff | MR Zine | Op-Ed

(Photo: iNkMan_)
In France, millions march against the Sarkozy plan to push the age of eligibility for full retirement benefits from 65 to 67. "We can no longer afford" to pay for workers' retirements at age 65, Sarkozy says. Similarly, rumors swirl in Washington and beyond that Obama's special Deficit Reduction Commission is tilting toward similar changes for Social Security here.
What a dishonorable way to "reduce government deficits." It amounts to reneging on commitments made to working people. For many decades they contributed to Social Security, and made decisions about their savings, expecting and counting on the Social Security retirement age promised to them for all those years.
Sarkozy and Obama don't consider reducing government budget deficits by taxing business or the rich. That would be "inappropriate in a time of economic crisis," they say, as if they ever did or ever would support it in any other time.
What about postponing retirement benefits in the US? Here's why that's "inappropriate in a time of economic crisis." Millions of Americans will respond to that postponement of retirement benefits by staying in the workforce. Older workers are more likely those with seniority and thus able to keep their jobs. Postponing retirement postpones opening up jobs for the unemployed and the young people just entering the labor force. Postponing retirement is the opposite of a program to reduce unemployment. What the government budget gains by postponing payments to retirees will be lost by having to pay much more in unemployment benefits (plus all the other social costs of unemployment) than would have been necessary if unemployed people had gotten the jobs retirees left.
One of the reasons that millions of young French people have joined the mammoth demonstrations against Sarkozy's plan to postpone retirement is this: they have recognized that their chances to find jobs are directly damaged by his plan.
Here's another reason why it is "inappropriate" to do what Sarkozy is attempting and what Obama seems to want to follow. If US workers see the government taking away one Social Security benefit by postponing retirement eligibility, millions will conclude that they can no longer count on Social Security for their livelihoods after a lifetime of labor. They will start to save much more money to make up personally for what the government's retirement system is taking away. That will further reduce consumption expenditures by Americans, leading US employers to lay off the workers they no longer need to produce what American consumers no longer buy. It will thus deepen the recession and worsen unemployment.
Here's still another reason. Retirement provides millions of people with time to do all sorts of important tasks with significant economic consequences. For example, retired people provide their families and others with baby-sitting and child-care services that are crucial in a country that provides too little of these and often at unaffordable prices. Already squeezed young families with children will lose such services when grandparents have to wait additional years before retiring with Social Security benefits. That loss has serious economic costs attached. To take another example, retirees provide crucial staffing as volunteers in countless social service agencies across the country. US presidents have been urging such volunteer efforts for years as an urgently needed supplement to the insufficient services government provides for people. Postponing retirement will deprive those agencies of millions of such volunteers at just this time of crisis when need for them is greatest. Where is the accounting for the social costs of depriving these agencies of the volunteers they rely on?
A smart as well as decent policy would be to lower the retirement age. Here's how and why. Suppose folks between 2 and 3 years below the current retirement eligibility ages were provided with the following incentive: you can retire and get your Social Security retirement benefits now if you agree to perform 10 hours per week of work in a social service agency you can select from a long list of options. Your obligation would last for just as long as the difference between your early retirement and the traditional retirement age. This would free up many paying jobs for the unemployed and new entrants into the labor market, and it would increase staffing in social service agencies.
The attack on Social Security is another skirmish in the war on the US working class. It tests, yet again, how far that class can be pushed before it begins seriously to push back. The government, having bailed out the rich, now needs to pay for the bailout by taking money from average people. Pushing back the Social Security retirement age is one way to do that.
Imagine if Americans took a page from the French working class's book. Imagine if millions went into the streets to say no, this crisis has already hurt us more than enough. Suppose those millions charged the government with bailing out those most responsible for the crisis. And just think if, with quiet determination, Americans told the government that enough was enough. Henceforth, they might then say, government policy would be switched into the reverse of what it has been: from now on, average people would be bailed out and the rich would pay the cost.
The movement toward this historic reversal is underway in France. It is time for us to catch up.
Rick Wolff is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. He is the author of New Departures in Marxian Theory (Routledge, 2006) among many other publications. Check out Rick Wolff’s documentary film on the current economic crisis, Capitalism Hits the Fan, at www.capitalismhitsthefan.com. Visit Wolff's Web site at www.rdwolff.com, and order a copy of his new book Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do about It.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



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.
The American masses are a
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 09:29 — Anonymous (not verified)The American masses are a gang of servile, self-absorbed bullies too badly educated to understand anything about history and filled with delusional contempt for anything resembling solidarity with their fellow workers and their fellow citizens.
These idiots deserve the worst government--and one of the worst economies--in the world, and that is exactly what their masters in the Republican Party are going to serve them.
They will go to their graves barking "kill your ass, motherfucker!" and "Sir! Yes, Sir!" resting only long enough to whine "thank you, Jesus" every time they open another bottle of beer.
To hell with them. Sooner or later they will kill themselves off.
The future, if there is one, belongs to other countries.
Yes Virginia, lets make
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 09:46 — Anonymous (not verified)Yes Virginia, lets make seniors wait longer to collect their social security that has had no cost of living increase in two years. That will allow the top 2 percent in the united states to keep their tax cuts and their 3 homes and their 5 cars and 4 kids in ivy league schools and vacations in Tahiti, Bermuda and Switzerland.
What does "full retirement
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 11:38 — AnonymousDV (not verified)What does "full retirement age" mean in France? In the USA it is a joke, a play on words. I am now 66 (full retirement age) so I looked into it. The only significance of being 66 now is that if I chose to take social security benefits now, they would not be reduced because I am still employed. It does not mean that I can retire now and get as much as I would get if I waited to age 67. Of course I plan to work as long as I possibly can. It's good for my health and my pocket book but I feel sorry for blue collar folks who have worn out their bodies.
Excuse me, isn't the French
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 15:18 — Anonymous (not verified)Excuse me, isn't the French age for retirement 62 and the President of France wants to move it to 60?
Stella
Big typo or misleading on
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 15:52 — ron (not verified)Big typo or misleading on purpose? From 65 to 67.... or: from 60 to 62? In France it is from 60 to 62.... Quite a big difference I would say.
no the age to retire was 60
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 16:20 — Anonymous (not verified)no the age to retire was 60 and they moved it to 62... everyone is fussing even 15 year old highschool students...
Perhaps it's time for all
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 17:30 — Anonymous (not verified)Perhaps it's time for all americans to start( as a beginning tool) - hitting the streets as the french do.We constantly belittle the french, but at least the've got the balls to take their complaints to the streets. As the first writer says we are servile and weak.Who said some thing like: you deserve the government that you have???
If we don't complain loudly pretty soon we will be slaves and our 6 and 7 year old kids will be working in sweat shops-oops, our shops have been sent to the far east. I fear for my country.
Actually living in France I
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 18:00 — Collie (not verified)Actually living in France I can assure you the age of retirement at the
moment is 60, and Sarko is trying to move it to 62. That one erroneous
fact, prevented me reading further. What as waste of an article.
I wouldn't be surprised at
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 21:32 — Anonymous (not verified)I wouldn't be surprised at all that the next proposal by the so called "Deficit Reduction" Commission will be more reductions in Social Security benefits. But what would anyone expect from a government of criminals, for criminals, by criminals?
People,let's get real!!! this government is no longer running for our benefit or the mutual benefit of our country. Criminals, inside and outside the government are in control of the game and nothing will change until people will awaken from their slumber and become informed.
By KATRIN
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 22:17 — HOWARD CHRISTOFERSEN MD (not verified)By KATRIN BENNHOLD
Published: September 15, 2010
PARIS — "Lawmakers in France’s lower house on Wednesday passed President Nicolas Sarkozy’s pension overhaul, which includes an increase of the minimum retirement age to 62 from 60, after several days of political cross-fire that ended with a raucous overnight debate"
That is what I was able to find and it definitely says 62 from 60. I think Rick Wolff needs to explain why he gives a different figure.
The move from 60-62 is for
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 04:04 — Stan (not verified)The move from 60-62 is for early retirement at a reduced pension rate. You can take early retirement in the US too, but it costs you 20% of your Social Security and so we don't count that as the retirement age. The same goes for France and Rick Wolf has it right.
"...it is "inappropriate" to
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 14:26 — Anonymous (not verified)"...it is "inappropriate" to do what Sarkozy is attempting and what Obama seems to want to follow."
Obama has been stating all along the campaign trail that voters must vote Dem because the Reps want to cut Social Security. He's making out-an-out threats that Rep will cut SS if given the power to do so.
If the statement above from the article is true, it predetermines that he's either lying about his future intensions with the SS program, or is simply stating that he not a Dem, but in fact a Rep, if he too, intends to cut SS benefits after the election.
If the electorate is experiencing just another deceitful, fear-mongering tactic by our President, not unlike the tactics used by the last President, I think all credibility for any and all rhetoric spoken by him, is now lost by the evidence accordingly. And as such, the public should no longer have any respect or trust for his word or policies going forward, replacing him immediately with a leader who does have the public's trust restored.
Otherwise, aren't we just watching a despot run the country?
A smelly, homeless older
Fri, 10/29/2010 - 13:21 — Frances in California (not verified)A smelly, homeless older person with medical difficulties needs to start following Pete Petersen everywhere, declaring loudly that this is what Petersen wants for American seniors.
No, Anonymous on 10/18 at
Fri, 10/29/2010 - 13:28 — Frances in California (not verified)No, Anonymous on 10/18 at 14:29 - not all - not even most - Americans are servile, badly educated bullies. Enough of us are however, so that the Criminal Oligarchy can take all their money and buy off the servile and poorly educated to make the rest of us (who can't afford our own media outlets) look bad. Most of us are working class, but divided from each other by the Greedy minority. They have all the money anyone could ever need but they'd rather die than share with the laborers who made their lifestyle possible. They will tell any lie about us to enable the less-educated to sic the bullies on us and deprive us of our hard-earned and meager retirement savings.