Follow-up to "We Won't Be Sold Out" Rally

We blogged about the "We Won't Be Sold Out" rally yesterday. Here's a snippet of video (courtesy of Joy Sabl) from the event which occurred in the pouring rain:

  You can see the text of a follow-up email which was sent to Sen. Bob Casey's Pittsburgh staffer by Democracy for Pittsburgh after the jump.

"We Won't Be Sold Out" Rally and more today

Fuck the Fiscal Cliff
Via One Pittsburgh press release:

Frustrated community leaders, activists and organizations like One Pittsburgh are joining thousands across the country in a collective “What gives?!?!?!” to elected officials like Senator Bob Casey who didn’t seem to get the memo back in November. On December 10, hundreds will gather to say it bigger and louder: We want jobs, not cuts, from our elected leaders.

There will be several actions happening today including:

On December 10 we’ll make hundreds of phone calls while hundreds more participate in a Facebook flash mob, demanding that Casey stick to his word and fight for the middle class, One Pittsburgh will be flying a very large message over the city, a message that neither Sen Casey nor Sen. Toomey can miss, or misunderstand.

Rally info via Facebook:

"We Won't Be Sold Out" Rally
When: Monday, December 10, 2012, 2:30 PM
Where: 11 Stanwix Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Three things to remember during the debate about the Fiscal Cliff Fiscal Curb

1) Ronald Reagan: "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit."



2) A nonpartisan tax report which found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth was withdrawn after G.O.P. protest.

3) Nobody actually cares about the deficit like they say they do:




(h/t to Digby for items 1 and 3)

So Much For Consistency...

From ThinkProgress, June 20:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a libertarian hero, last year said that allowing Social Security to exist is akin to permitting slavery. But during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, Paul admitted to the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein that he collects Social Security checks anyway

Representative Paul, in that quoted link, goes so far as to assert that Social Security is unconstitutional. ThinkProgress gives a transcript of an interview with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.

WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

Social Security is unconstitutional, says Representative Ron Paul - and yet he takes the money anyway.

If he feels that strongly about it, he should sue the guv'ment for all that money of his it unconstitutionally stole from him.  If he feels that strongly about it he should refuse to pay into that unconstitutional system.  If he feels that strongly about it he should refuse to accept any of that unconstitutional money.

Rallies, Protests and a Happy Hour

It's that time of year -- lots going on!

Protest Governor's Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission Meeting
WHEN: Wednesday, April 27 · 10:00am - 1:00pm
WHERE: Rachel Carson Building, rm. 105 - Harrisburg PA
WHAT: Protest Governor Tom Corbett's Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission meeting. More info here

Don't Make Us Work Till We Die!
WHEN: Wednesday, April 27 · 12:00pm - 1:00pm
WHERE: Social Security Office, 921 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA
WHAT: Action and Funeral Procession, "Bring: Skull and Crossbones, Death Masks, Skeletons, Wheelchairs and Walkers, anything that signifies Seniors Worked to Death! We have a coffin! After the rally, volunteers will gather petitions downtown and pass out Flyers for the May 3rd Rally, Sponsors so far: Strengthen Social Security, Health Care for America Now, The National Organization of Women, SEIU, ARA, SOAR, CLUW, looking for more!" Sign the petition at http://www.worktillwedie.org/ RSVP here


Rally for Valerie and A Community Call to Action
WHEN: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 12 Noon
WHERE: Freedom Corner (Centre Ave. and Crawford St. intersection), Pittsburgh PA
WHAT: 'Why a "Rally"? To support Valerie McDonald Roberts, the most qualified candidate for Allegheny County Controller.
Why a "Call to Action"? To effect the inclusion of African Americans in Allegheny County leadership positions.' http://allieswithvalerie.com/main/

The PAC is Back -- P2pac Happy Hour
WHEN: Thursday, April 28 · 6:00pm - 9:00pm
WHERE: 3705 Butler Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15201-1819
WHAT: "Join us at Eclipse Lounge Pittsburgh on Thursday from 6-8pm. Reconnect with long-time supporters, welcome new ones, meet our board, and discuss the important May 17 primaries. Mingle, ask questions, learn about the races, and donate to the P2pac (donation not required, but very much appreciated) so that we can support the best local candidates for Pittsburgh's future in the coming elections!" P2pac on Facebook here. RSVP here
.

More On Toomey

There's a follow-up to this post. It refers back to
this article at the Scranton Times-Tribune where Congressman Pat Toomey was defending his plans to privatize social security (if only partially).

Wonkroom has done some work on this section where Congressman Wall Street explains his confidence in, well, Wall Street :

"I would argue that you don't really have to worry about a fluctuation in the stock market because this is a 45-year period of time, and you are gradually transitioning out of stocks as you get older and get closer to the point where you need to draw on those funds," he said.

The stock market would rise and fall, but over 45 years an investor from a private account would end up ahead, he said.

"If you don't believe in that, then you're giving up on the American economy," he said. "I mean, there's never been a 20-year period in our history where we haven't had a positive performance in the stock market, much less a 40-year period. If we don't have growth over a 40-year period, we got serious problems."

And now to the Wonkroom:

Toomey argued that “there’s never been a 20-year period in our history where we haven’t had a positive performance in the stock market, much less a 40-year period,” so anyone subject to his scheme wouldn’t have to worry. However, as Center for American Progress economist Christian Weller noted in 2005 (before the financial meltdown of 2008), there have been plenty of sluggish periods in the U.S. stock market, and accounts need to earn above and beyond the rate of inflation just to stay in the black

Weller's piece from 2005 can be found here. Weller stated back then that those private accounts would have to earn at least 3 percent above inflation in order for there to be any net gains on those accounts. He went on:

Even Wall Street agrees that on average, people will have a hard time meeting this target.

Meanwhile, of course, the money managers handling all that extra cash will still be collecting their fees.

So while it would be difficult, to say the least, for workers to get a net gain on the money in their private accounts, Wall Street still makes out very nicely indeed.

Toomey gets it wrong on Social Security, But can we see what a good deal this is for Wall Street?

Congressman Wall Street - wrong on Social Security.

Pat Toomey Defends Privatizing Social Security

From the Scranton Times-Tribune:

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey defended his proposal Thursday to ensure Social Security's future with a form of privatization and accused Democrat Joe Sestak of distorting his position.

"I've put a proposal on the table and the result is my opponent has mischaracterized it, attacked me for it and demagogued on it while he has said nothing about the long-term structural problems we've got with entitlements," Mr. Toomey told The Times-Tribune editorial board.

First Toomey's proposal: No change for anyone getting Social Security benefits now.

But (as we've seen before) for younger workers

Mr. Toomey would allow younger workers to voluntarily divert a portion of their Social Security payroll tax into private savings accounts they would control and invest any way they want. A young worker who did not want to do that could stay with the current system of a guaranteed benefit.

"Over the course of 45 years or so, the accumulated savings from putting a little bit of money away every week or every month for 45 years would add up to a very significant nest egg, and that could form the basis of a very significant portion of their retirement," he said.

Mr. Toomey said he would require the private accounts to be professionally managed with diversified investments to minimize the risk. The money would be shifted to less risky investments as a person approaches retirement age.

But it's not "anyway they want" is it? Congressman Wall Street would require the private accounts to be managed by Wall Street - and those requirements seem to include a schedule of some sort for moving the investments from greater risk to lesser risk as the person ages.

ut what if that person doesn't want to invest with Toomey's friends on Wall Street? What if that person doesn't want Toomey's friends on Wall Street to shift all that money around at the end of his/her life? What if that person wants to keep the money in a sack under the bed?

That person's outta luck, as the small-government/Club For Growth Toomey has already made those decisions. A conservative meme in the Social Security discussion is how the government is arrogant for deciding that it knows better how to invest a person's money. But Toomey's plan does the same thing - only this time Wall Street gets to play with the funds.

All in all a good plan from Wall Street's man, doncha think?

The Times-Tribune goes on:

Critics say removing the money to create private accounts would require massive new borrowing to pay current benefits, and people could lose in the stock market and be left with a diminished retirement. They point to the stock market meltdown of two years ago.

But Mr. Toomey said massive new borrowing will be required anyway to keep current benefits the same once the trust fund is exhausted. Borrowing would no longer be required once the number of retirees in the traditional system is small enough to reduce what the system must pay out to a figure that's less than the taxes the fund takes in.

He argues that would happen because retirees in the traditional system would want to shift once they see people with private accounts earning more for retirement.

So Toomey's plan would increase the deficit now with the massive new borrowing needed to cover the Social Security shortfall his plan will obviously cause. He says that eventually borrowing will no longer be required. But paying it back will. Where will that money come from?

Toomey doesn't say. In the mean time massive amounts of money will have been diverted to Wall Street.

Pat Toomey - Social Security privatizer and ever lasting friend of Wall Street.

Toomey On His Social Security "Solution"

From the Luzerne County Citizens Voice.

First the by now familiar bamboozle:

Toomey has said he does not favor wholesale investment of the Social Security Trust Fund into the stock market. Rather, he favors allowing younger workers the option of taking a portion of their Social Security payroll tax and creating private - also known as personal - accounts and they could invest any way they wanted.

This is what Toomey's old friends at the Club For Growth have called PRIVATIZATION.

Toomey, by the way, still denies that it is. Where's the ideological loyalty, man??

Anyway, a few days ago, I wrote about Toomey:

He never gets around to explaining how those who are retired now will still "get all the benefits they were promised" while reducing the funds flowing into the system. Those funds would be the "accumulated" savings of those "young workers" he talked about.

Well, now I have an answer. It's at Citizen's Voice. In explaining his plan to allow young workers to divert money to private accounts (though that's not privatization, doncha know):

The downside, which Toomey acknowledges, is the government would have to borrow trillions of dollars to replace the money removed by the younger workers to help pay the benefits of present-day Social Security beneficiaries.

Over time, however, Toomey and advocates of his approach say, the private accounts would mean more money than traditional Social Security benefits and would reduce the amount private account-holders must take out of the Social Security Trust Fund.

So Toomey's in favor of increasing the national debt? In order to divert more money to Wall Street?

Say it ain't so, Pat! Say it ain't so!

Toomey's STILL Looking To Privatize Social Security

From today's Reading Eagle. When asked this question:

The Social Security Trust Fund is expected to start paying out more than it's taking in within the next few years. What options do you think should be explored to address the problem? Which is your favorite? Why?

Congressman Wall Street answered:

The most important thing to remember is that anybody who is already retired or close to retirement has to get all the benefits they were promised without any changes whatsoever. When I was in the House, I co-sponsored legislation that would make it out of order for Congress to even consider legislation that would in any way cut the benefits of senior citizens. That's important. But anybody who takes an honest look at this system knows that in its current form it's not sustainable for future generations. That's why I've advocated that young workers get an opportunity in a reformed Social Security program to, if they choose, accumulate some savings as a way to provide a portion of their retirement benefit. I think this would be very helpful to young workers, and make the program sustainable for the future. [emphasis added.]

He never gets around to explaining how those who are retired now will still "get all the benefits they were promised" while reducing the funds flowing into the system. Those funds would be the "accumulated" savings of those "young workers" he talked about. Never gets around to showing how this will help "sustain" Social Security in the future.

I've said it before. If it walks like a duck...

Pat Toomey, Social Security privatizer.

Hell, Yea!

After leaving the House of Representatives and before running for the Senate (this time) Pat Toomey was president of the Club for Growth.

If you've been following this story at Early Returns 2.0 you've seen that Tim McNulty opened with:

Readers of this site know full well how hard the Pat Toomey campaign has pushed back on claims that he wants to "privatize" Social Security.

Tim's being way too nice to Toomey. Here's Jim O'Toole from Tim's second link:

Democrats have repeatedly criticized Mr. Toomey for a statement at the Harrisburg Press Club last month in which he denied ever having advocated the "privatization of Social Security." That statement may seem at odds with Mr. Toomey's long and outspoken advocacy of a shift from the current system to one that would allow workers to invest their own retirement funds in private or personal accounts.

The dispute is not an example of a campaign trail conversion by the Republican but a replay of a semantic argument from the early years of the second term of President George W. Bush. Before it became clear that Mr. Bush's plan had no political momentum, its proponents tried to boost its chances with a rhetorical shift from the term "private accounts" to "personal accounts" -- a nominal but not substantive change rooted in the poll-tested notion that "personal accounts" would sound more appealing.

Mr. Toomey has not modified his position that such a change is essential given the projected shortfalls in the massive retirement program. In his 2008 book, "The Road to Prosperity," written with his campaign communications director Nachama Soloveichik, he devotes a chapter to his vision for the system, one that he reaffirmed in a recent interview. Mr. Toomey would retain the current system and promised benefit levels for current beneficiaries and those close to retirement.

For younger workers, however, he would establish the option of investing part of their Social Security contribution in private accounts -- or personal accounts, take your pick -- that would allow them to take advantage of the potentially more generous yields of private markets.

If it walks like a duck... Sounds like a privatize-quack to me.

McNulty earlier linked to this thinkprogress post which catches Toomey in some serious weasel words. When asked if he continues to to favor the privatization of Social Security, Mr Wall Street spun:

I’ve never said I favor privatizing Social Security. It’s a very misleading — it’s an intentionally misleading term. And it is used by those who try to use it as a pejorative to scare people…[T]hat doesn’t mean that we must perpetuate exactly this structure for future workers and for very young workers. So I’ve advocated that we consider offering young workers an alternative — a reform within Social Security that would give them the opportunity to take a portion of their payroll tax and actually save that and own that and allow that to accumulate over the course of their working years and for that to provide a portion of their retirement benefit. I think that’d be a very constructive reform, and that’s what I’m going to advocate. [emphasis in original]

Does he think we're not paying attention? What's that if not privatization?

The wonkroom points out:

Toomey seems to be under the impression that if you aren’t in favor of privatizing all of the Social Security system then you aren’t in favor of privatizing, period. But make no mistake, Toomey absolutely favors privatizing a portion of the program, as he makes painfully clear through his advocating that young workers “own” an account.

If there was any doubt about where he's coming from, his old pals at the Club for Growth have issued a statement on the privatization of Social Security. It's titled:

Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!

In bold green letters. And they write:

Most Republicans are running away from the Social Security issue. They've probably been told by establishment handlers to never defend "privatization" or personal accounts.

Baloney.

Fiscal conservative candidates should embrace it. While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries.

Isn't that more or less exactly what Toomey's proposing? And doesn't the Club for Growth call that Privatization?

And doesn't that mean that Pat Toomey wants to privatize Social Security?

And doesn't that mean that Toomey was, uh, misleading the public when he said that he never favored privatizing Social Security?

Hell, yeah.

What Atrios says

here.
.

Pat Toomey Flip Flops (Yes, He Did.)

From PA2010:

Republican Senate hopeful Pat Toomey appeared to be trying a little revisionist history this week when he claimed he never called for privatizing Social Security.

Toomey made the statement at the end of his appearance at the Pennsylvania Press Club Monday, only to see a wave of critics calling him out. That included the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which dug up a 2003 headline from Toomey’s hometown newspaper, The Morning Call, which read: “Toomey: Privatize Social Security.”

The former Club for Growth president said he does favor allowing younger workers to deposit savings into private accounts, a position he has held since his first congressional term in 1999. He recently touted it in his book, “The Road to Prosperity,” which is now selling for $3.03 on Amazon.

The key to understanding this semantic subterfuge is, well, semantics. The word Toomey uses is “personalized” Social Security accounts.

It's always enlightening to flesh out stories like these to see more clearly what, in fact, is going on. According to thinkprogress, when asked "Do you continue to favor privatizing Social Security?" Mr Wallstreet answered:

I’ve never said I favor privatizing Social Security. It’s a very misleading — it’s an intentionally misleading term. And it is used by those who try to use it as a pejorative to scare people…[T]hat doesn’t mean that we must perpetuate exactly this structure for future workers and for very young workers. So I’ve advocated that we consider offering young workers an alternative — a reform within Social Security that would give them the opportunity to take a portion of their payroll tax and actually save that and own that and allow that to accumulate over the course of their working years and for that to provide a portion of their retirement benefit. I think that’d be a very constructive reform, and that’s what I’m going to advocate.

Unfortunately, what he described is exactly "privatizing" Social Security. Whether it's "a portion" or all of someone's payroll tax, "owning" it makes it privatization.

Calling it something else in the hopes that no one will notices the flim-flam, is just dishonest.

But we've already seen that Pat is so devoted to the Club For Growth speak, he has trouble speaking truthfully.