Dear ———– (Congress people),
Lifted from comments here by Reader Jack, who recommends writing to your Congress representatives. Now this is probably not as satisfying as the (hat tip Yves Smith crosspost) post from Steve at the Daily Bail.
Dear——-,
I hope that you will be standing tall against the current forces of deception that are campaigning hard to destabilize Social Security as we know it. The SS program works very well and has been doing so since its inception. The program is in the black and only a deceitful campaign to destroy the program presents it any other way. The Trust Fund is real and is a debt to the system as well as the program’s “savings account” upon which if draws when receipts from FICA are insufficient to cover benefits. Do not conflate Social Securities solvency with the deficit condition of the general budget or the Medicare program.
The Peterson Foundation is leading this deceptive attack on the sanctity of Social Security in a brazen attempt to weaken that system and move ever closer to a privatization scheme. The so-called bipartisan Deficit Commission, correctly maligned as the Cat Food Commission, is stacked against Social Security. It’s Chairmen’s preliminary recommendations are absurd if the purpose of the Commission is to genuinely find a means by which to balance the general budget. It lacks even face validity. That is not surprising as its two Chairs have previously expressed their individual biases. Mr. Simpson has been publicly derisive of the Social Security program. Mr. Bowles is a hand maiden to the investment banking community serving as a Board member of JP Morgan bank and receiving compensation of $300,000 for attending several Board meetings each year. That’s bi-partisan?? Only if one considers right of center and far right as the measure.I’m looking for you to play a more significant role protecting the interests of working middle class Americans in any effort to “adjust” Federal spending, taxation and Social Security.
I see no reason to send that to GOP members of Congress and I think that it is important that the Democrats publicly split with the President. I can only believe that in an effort to get a few crumbs from the right–increase in gas tax, some cutbacks in the bloated defense budget- Obama is prepared to start social security on the path to oblivion thereby fulfilling the rights 70 year old dream. I would have thought the move toward a flat tax would be enough to get the right salivating, but as he has demonstrated repeatedly, Obama is willing to sell out every American except the super rich in return for crumbs. There is simply no other explanation for social security even being in the discussion of deficit reduction. Personally, I would like to see him impeached and take my chances with Biden for the next 2 years and in 2012.
Jack’s letter is not much more than a string of unsupported claims. For example: “a deceitful campaign to destroy the program…”, this suggests that Jack’s opposition is bent on destroying the program for no reason other than a propensity for destructive behavior. As if they have no other motive than the pleasure derived from destroying peple’s lives (sophmoric demogogeury). Surely these ‘destroyers’ must at least feign some sort of justification, (and that is where there might be something to argue about).
Or, what shows that: “The Peterson Foundation is leading this deceptive attack on the sanctity of Social Security in a brazen attempt”? Is this evidence: “The so-called bipartisan Deficit Commission, correctly maligned as the Cat Food Commission, is stacked against Social Security.” Or does support exist here: “It lacks even face validity.” As if just Jack’s opinion makes it so.
And this: “Mr. Simpson has been publicly derisive of the Social Security program.” If Mr. Simpson has in fact been so “publicly derisive”, then, why is there no quote. And, is the reader to assume, again, that regardless of what Mr. Simpson might of said, that his POV is not worthy of consideration. As if only Jack’s POV could possibly have merit, because Jack always knows better.
I suppose that our represenitives in Congress know that constituents have differing opinions. That is about all that this letter states. Then too, if the reader is wise, he might conclude that people who fail to understand the importance of honest argumentation, tend to fall on one side of this issue or another. In this case, presumably, the oppossing groups here are equally lacking, so I suppose that point is moot. But in the interest of saving time, constituents might as well just send in a letter stating which side of the issue they fall on, and something to the effect that all those in opposition to their view are “absurd” and “destructive”, and so on (‘evil doers’ is good and short).
Grover Norquist has already answered the objection you raise. He did so many years ago, saying he wanted to make government small enough to drown in the bathtub. If you missed that, you should check it out. It is the background for Jack’s view.
As to why there is no quote, well again, a little familiarity with the subject on your part would help. There was the “310 million tits” comment, just for starters.
It is always worthwhile offering supporting evidence for one’s positions, but there is also a presumption, in educated discussion, that one’s interlocutors have a grasp of the basics and the history of the subject matter, and of current events. I think Jack can be forgiven if he failed to educate you while making his point.
Kharris–Hear, hear. NO
k,
I stand corrected. Had I known about the Norquist comment, and about the “310 tits” comment, I would have been less critical. I am simply ignorant. I did not know for example that some people believe that the government is too large. That is new to me.
As always, your arguments are just too much for me. I thought for example, stupidly, never having been privy to “educted discussion”, that acceptable “presumption” is correct in instances which support is unecessary, or trite, due to overwhelming acceptance. The phrase, ‘water is wet’ makes a good example, which is why it so commonly used to show how a premise is widely accepted, for the obvious reasons. But Jack’s presumptions are by no means lacking in controversy, our most recent elections are a solid testement to that fact.
So… what in Jack’s letter, is as widely accepted as ‘water is wet’, so as not to require support? Do all concerned agree that the ” SS program works very well” for example. Or is it only those of us that Jack, or someone as well informed as you, have “failed to educate” (us boneheads) that see that as an unsupported claim (a claim which happen to agree with, BTW).
I suppose at such elevated levels of thinking (your’s and Jack’s), that it is difficult to imagine, that others are too dense to understand that their water is ‘always’ dry, while your water is always wet. How smug, and yet, shallow, while being presented as superior in its understanding. But then I suppose ‘smug’ and ‘shallow’ are the building blocks of the type of”presumption” we are discussing here.
Jack,
Why do you and kharris think it is clever to base your rebuttles on the person you are arguing with, rather than the material being questioned. Do you really think that my lack of knowledge on this subject has anything to do with what I said, or, are you unable to show why my contentions are flawed? And, in a conversation about ‘presumption’, can you not see just how presumptuous it is to assume what I know, or don’t know (wow-dumb).
I made my case above and yet the two of you make no effort to provide evidence to the contrary. Notice how my comments contain supports which are often right after the words ‘for example’, that is the material in question, not my “understanding”, argue with that, confront that, explain ‘why’, based on the material at hand, what I have said that is wrong. That is one of the reasons that supported claims are important in these forums, the support is the ‘why’, it is what warrents argument, and I have supplied the two of you with ample opportunities to show me ‘why’ I am wrong. Spare me the childish nonsense and the ex-post references that we can ‘presume’ that congressmen are not aware of either ( I say either but in truth I was once one of the regulars at Dean Baker’s site and of course I am fully aware of Bruce’s views etc., not that this has anything to do with my assertions, but, duly noted in response to one of many ‘presumptions’).
But, you talk of “facts” and use the assinine claim that I don’t understand because I am not privy to the very information that the intended reader of your letter is almost certainly not privy to either. So, as suggested in my previus comment, your letter says, in essence, that ‘Jack likes SS the way it is, and those who disagree are “deceitful” and “absurd”, and a Congressman is corrupt (duh).
Ray,
What is it you’re arguing about? What is it about my effort at personal lobbying of elected represeentatives is so off base with you? You’re arguing about “facts”, whatever they may be in the debate regarding the general deficit and the Social Security system, that may or may not be understood by those addressed by my letter. Yes, I seek to influence their positions in the Congress. I don’t have to prove a case to an elected representative. I only have to impress those people with the strength of my intentions. I have to motivate others to take the same approach, and apparently you want to argue the opposite though with no more “facts” than you’re demanding from me. You must have skipped over the first paragraph of my last comment since you seem not to have noticed the references there provided.
It was clear it was a letter to your congressperson only. Mine would be to John Kerry and Ed Markey, persons well acquainted with the issues and passions of the topic, and public statements, and need my intent in a snail mail letter to reinforce my point of view as a voter.
Perhaps if I sent the letter to Scott Brown I could include more, but then he would not read it
It is a conundrum writing to congress persons. Where to start!
Now since it was I who lifted the letter from comments to a more exalted level of a post, this could be directed at me instead, especially if I hid the fact that it was a generic letter of the kind one sends pro forma.
The letter is way to wordy. The congress critters know what is on our mind, they just ignore it. Erskine Bowles, Alsn Simpson , Alice Rivlin, Paul Ryan, etc. Come on, folks, we are about to be skinned alive. Just watch the so called liberal media, especially “I give head to whoever is in power” Chris M.
My reading of the “peoples” deficit reduction commission is:
1) Pass tax cuts for everyone up to income of $250K. No extra tax cuts for those making more.
2) Immediately tax capital gains and interest income at the same rate as paycheck income.
3) Cut the pentagon budget in half, immediately.
4) Withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan within six months, no matter what.
5) Immediately allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmacutical industry.
6) Retroactively to Jan 1 2010, repeal the hedge fund manager tax break of income as capital gains.
7) Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in their entirety.
8) Extend Medicare to 55 yrs old and above.
9) The only tinkering with Social Security is to means test the current recipients, to expire in 15 years.
10) Extend the personal SS withholding tax to $250K, leaving the employers contribution at the current level.
Anything I have forgotten.
The one and only important point to get across in a letter to an elected representative is that you, your friends, your relatives and your neighbors (all to the best extent the writer can make happen) will vote against that person if that person votes contrary to your expressed interests. A further step is to insist that the elected representative make a bit more noise than they are about an important issue. Your vote is your only asset and it is better utilized if it can be combined with the votes of your own close circle of friends.
What anyone thinks of the content of one’s personal lobbying effort is totally irrelevant beyond one’s interest in recruiting others to your side of an issue. What did Jefferson say, “We hold these truths to be self evident?” Well that is exactly how I have come to believe after having read and digested the many articles on the issues of the deficit and the Social Security program. Why does anyone accept the reports of Dean Baker, Stiglitz, Galbraith etc? Because they are able to support their arguments with reasoned reference to established data. They simply don’t sound like they are selling a bill of goods. Too many of the other do and also earn their keep in a manner that taints their credibility.
Well said, Jack. NancyO
I can’t argue with your logic, Jack. The pressure has to be in diss-electing the congress critters. Obviously, we are failing. The exception is the “tea party”, who have shown the way.
The fact that Barry O’Bama has allowed his image managers to portray himself as Barrack O’Bush is totally regrettable, smearing the incredible job he is actually doing. Except when acts as GW Bush. When I review the record of things he has accomplished, I cannot reconcile the garbage his image handlers continue to promote. If he wants to remain in office, he needs to realize, as did FDR, that his image consultants are idiots. Literally.
The most important item in the “peoples” deficit reduction program is to completely gut the agricultural subsidy program. Should be item #1. The agricultural subsidy program is the source of all the tea party insanity and the source of the trading away manufacturing jobs to sel subsidized agricultural products to the world.
What a devastating waste of American history. Max Bauckus from Montana, the Grand Wizard of the new Republican Party, Mitch McConell, Jon Boner, all are artifacts of the agricultural lobby. All the screwed up “trade agreements”.
Dan has it pretty close but my point has nothing to do with him hiding the fact that it is a ‘generic letter”. The rub is that the letter is being presented as exemplary when it is far from it. Simple.
The first unsupported claim begins thus: “The SS program works very well and has been doing so since its inception”. So, if this is an acceptable norm, why are there people trying to change the program? There is essentially an invisable question that Jack addresses with only this: “only a deceitful campaign to destroy the program presents it any other way”.
A supported version of the same claim would read something like this: The SS program works very well ‘because’ bla bla bla. Then, in what could and should begin another paragraph: Only a deceitful campaign to destroy the program presents it any other way. But again, there are unanswered questions brought up by the claim. People don’t want to destroy SS for no reason, and this is a serious accusation. But instead of a reason there is only an accusation of deceit, in a deceitful context, it just dosn’t get much more hypocritical than this. No names, no examples, no support of any kind, some mysterious group is just trying to “destroy” SS for no reason.
So it dosn’t matter ‘which’ congresspeson reads the letter, nor does it matter how much the reader knows about the issue. The writing itself is dishonest in its structure and content, and I have given multiple examples that still go unchallanged. And whether God, or Dean-I-called-the housing-bubble-only-3 months-after- M.Hudson’s-cover-story-article-in-Harper’s-magizine Baker, agrees with Jack-ex-post-support, or not, is irrelevant.
So, when a congressperson reads hundreds of such letters, all against changing SS, but then reads only a handfull of letters to the contrary, but each of those based in solid and honest argumentation, that congressperson might conclude that people with poor critical thinking skills fall on one side of the issue, while those with a higher level of understanding fall on the other side. Of course that person’s mind may be made-up anyway, but concise and honest appeals are difficult to ignore. While hyperbolic nonsense is difficult just to read, and only those who want to believe it are convinced of anything.
So, is this letter exemplary?
Ah well ray…
rdan,
Ray has a point. Congresspeople have contrary reports on SS from CBO, the Trustees, Cato, etc. Jacks’ letter reads like a raving lunatic. Who would you listen to?
It’s always been my impression that guys like Pete Peterson and Alan Simpson have always had nothing but love for Social Security and want it to go on forever and ever. Nothing is more popular in some quarters than a government program that does what it’s supposed to do, thereby disproving the notion that Big Government Doesn’t Work.
It’s always been my impression that guys like Pete Peterson and Alan Simpson have always had nothing but love for Social Security and want it to go on forever and ever. Nothing is more popular in some quarters than a government program that does what it’s supposed to do, thereby disproving the notion that Big Government Doesn’t Work.
Dan,
It is not a big deal on this end.
The Deficit Commission was a horrible misplay. The decision was made to put it together back in February, when the economy looked like it was going to “recover” and inflation fears would start to be generated.
Unfortunately Obama’s economic advisors had mush for brains and had no idea what the situation really was, leaving this abomination totally tone-deaf in the continued jobless recovery.
I think Obama has fired everyone responsible for this, so there’s that.
fwiw, I agree with you that it’s too wordy.
You’re not going to educate a Congressperson with this kind of writing.
The it’s grammatical error doesn’t help either.
Here’s my attempt:
Senator/Representative _________:
I am writing to you to ask you to join the fight against those who want to “privatize” / “personalize” or otherwise roll back the Social Security retirement insurance program as we know it.
As I’m sure you know, to ensure Social Security had the funds to meet the baby boomer’s retirement this century, back in 1985 Alan Greenspan and the Democratic Congress changed the plan to overtax FICA payers so that the baby boom could pre-pay their retirements.
But now that the program has over-taxed FICA payers over $1.5T (Trillion), and has another $1T of accrued interest, very powerful forces are at work to essentially steal this money from middle class ratepayers like me.
These monied interests are demagoguing our Treasury bond holdings as “just worthless IOUs”, “we just owe it to ourselves”, “Congress spent the money already” etc. in the attempt to confuse the electorate about who now owes whom this $2.5T (and growing).
It is NOT true that SSA’s bonds are “worthless IOUs” — the Treasury Bonds held by SSA are just as real obligations of the US government as any other government agency’s, including for example the Alaska Permanent Fund, which holds $2.5B of Treasuries per their latest report.
It is NOT true that “we just owe it to ourselves” — since Federal income tax payers are overwhelmingly well above the FICA cutoff, it can honestly be said that when the SSA Treasury bonds are redeemed to the Treasury, to raise this extra cash either a) the wealthy must pay via higher taxes, or b) we borrow the money, [or c) we print it, but I don’t want to go there].
While it is true that Congress has spent the money, that’s part of the original plan. Now that the money has been spent into the economy, our economy has grown greatly since 1985 and we can and I think should now begin redeeming the bonds for the retirees who, having paid so much extra into the SSI retirement system, are now beginning to draw their money out via regular SSI checks.
While there can be honest differences of opinion about how best to draw down our $2.5T holding, I urge you to do your part as my representative to preserve the system and prevent these rat bastards from STEALING MY MONEY.
Thank you.
As usual, this old man is late to the party. Perhaps it’s just my view, but it seems that there is/has been : 1 a shill; 2 a troll; 3 no not what he speaks of. Perhaps some more, but, as a recipient of the S.S. each month, I surely don’t take to having to give up any more of the monthly stippen just so some ego led person[s] can claim victory over the “Little People”. It really gnaws at my beliefs that for the past 30 + years, the country has declined to the level it has today. I think H.G. has a sound idea in his post, perhaps if those of us who agree take a lesson from the tea people, then perhaps the fools on the hill might listen, but not to hold ones breath. Thanks for letting me give my 2 cents worth.
Ray,
I don’t know what your aim is, but I do know that you are attacking a straw man that you have built out of your own misrepresentation of what I have proposed. If you think that our elected representatives are going to read such details in the letters that they receive you are very naive. One point, and only one point is important. That being to express your preference on an issue and make it crystal clear that your vote is tied to that preference. A letter to an elected representative is not a research based white paper intended to prove a point. It’s only purpose is to influence a vote. It’s lobbying on an individual basis. Only numbers count when it’s vote numbers your counting.
Two points about Social Security.
One, a big part of the reason why the savings rate in China is about 50% of GDP is that China does not have anything like Social Security, so individuals have to be over-prepared to care for themselves.
Two, a big part of the US’s current economic funk and caution is likely due to scaremongering about how Social Security is going to go bankrupt. With boomers approaching retirement, and with their home equity going rapidly down the tubes just in time for demographics to give them a double-whammy, uncertainty about the security of Social Security is probably a lot more hazardous for the US economy’s as the possiblity that the well to do may need to start paying taxes at the same rate as during the boom years between 1993 and 2000.