Jackson Free Press

George W. Bush last night:

"Two weeks ago I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home and around the world. Tonight, with a healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work, with our nation an active force for good in the world, the state of our union is confident and strong." ...

"One of America's most important institutions, a symbol of the trust between generations, is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. (Applause.)

The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy, and so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security. (Cheers, applause.) Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement. And for them, the system is strong and fiscally sound. I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. (Applause.) For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time."

Full transcript

Previous Commentsshow

Statement of Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi On President Bush's State of the Union Address Wednesday, February 2, 2005 "I applaud the President for putting the energy bill back up at the top of our to-do list, because my biggest disappointment of the last Congress was our failure to enact a national energy policy. And speaking of unfinished business, the Congress has long put off the hard decisions on preserving and strengthening social security, both for my 91-year-old mother who now depends on it, as well as for my children and grandchildren who question whether it will be there for them and what it will be worth. The President showed courage in tackling this problem, and I look forward to participating in this debate and working to find a solution."

DonnaLadd

Feb 3 2005

I too was gald to hear the president talk about the importance of a national energy bill, but was disappointed to hear him mention ethanol as a solution to the energy problem. Ethanol is hardly a subsitute for fossil fuels.

Justin

Feb 3 2005

Each time I feel the fear in the pit of stomach, because of some new Dubya policy or action or "speech", I fool myself into thinking it can't get worse. Yet, inevitably, it always does. I needed a whole bottle of pepto for last night.

kp

Feb 3 2005

Factcheck.org today on Bush's Social Security "bankruptcy" claim: In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy," a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes "bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised. Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they "will" grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future. Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up to get those private acounts -- a proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits. He also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would be "owned" by workers only in a very limited sense -- under strict conditions which the President referred to as "guidelines." Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority, wouldn't be able to touch their Social Security nest egg directly, even after retirement, because the government would take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of payments guaranteed for life. Click the link below for the full article: http://www.factcheck.org/article305m.html He also doesn't mention the trillions of dollars the government would have to borrow to set up these private accounts. Good "Nightline" piece on that and the myth of a Social Secuirty "crisis" two nights ago. Why do they just get to lie to us like this???

DonnaLadd

Feb 3 2005

Who'd a thunk it, but even Sweden has partially privatized social security:)(and Germany (the mother of social security), England, etc.... As opposed to trying the market option, which, by the way, I'll take any brokerage firm's return rates over the Social Secuirty Adm. (a whopping 1 something %; maybe two something; anyway, enought to fire a mutual fund manager overl and mutual fund type portfolios are what you would have under privitized SS), I guess we'll just stick with the current path: mathematical failure (too many pay-outs in the future; to few pay-ins). I'm just so glad that our congressman get to vote on the issue, yet opt out of having to put their paychecks into the social security system. How convenient for Sen. Kennedy (and others; just like to pick on him), who doesn't need it anyway. I'm glad he's looking out for us and telling us what to do with our money. Thank goodness. Without him, I don't know where I would be. Maybe, just maybe, I could put more towards retirement (and count on it being there).

MAllen

Feb 3 2005

If we privatize Social Security, what do we do for those who invest their retirement accounts in companies like WorldCom? There's bunches of people around here, in or near retirement, who lost buckets of money. And I don't think they're getting it back. How do we deal with those people? If investing money in the stock market and getting rich is so easy, how come we aren't all rich? My retirement was looking alot closer in early 2000 than it is now. Yeah, the market gains over time, but there are large swaths of time (like 10 to 15 years, 1970-ish to 1985-ish, for instance), when it didn't really gain. Bad luck for you, if that's when you're due to retire, I guess. I ask these questions sincerely - they've baffled me since the concept of privatization hit the airwaves, and I've yet to hear strong answers.

kate

Feb 4 2005

Quick answer because I don't have much time: under all existing proposals for social security, investing in a single stock is not an option. Rather, must existing systems give citizens a choice of investing amoung competing mutual/index funds or 401(k) type plans. Such plans are composed of numerous individual stocks so that the very type of risk you are referring to - which is real in any stock - can be spread out. What history has shown - time and again - is that compilations of many stocks yield positive returns (while some individual stocks in the fund will go down, generally the average of all goes up). Obviously, me saying they go "up" is not meant to assert that at any given moment they will be headed up - downturns in the overall market to occur. But average rate of return on the general market is about 10% - people differ on the exact number, e.g., some say 12%, so say a little lower that 10%. All of this is meant to say that over the long haul in an mutual fund is meant to reflect the movement of the overall market, which has been nothing but up through history. According to the CATO Institute (I realize, probably not a favorite think tank among many JFP readers), if you took any 20 year period in history, including the Great Depression, returns from the overall market were still greater than the returns the Social Security Adm. yields. As for the mutual funds, I believe, at least in the case of Chile, by individual companies, which in turn are regulated by the goverment. There are 14 competing funds and citizens are allowed to choose among competing alternatives. The performance of the competing funds so that citizens can switch funds at will - but they are still limitied to these 14 so that they can't wildly put their money in the market (this strongly cuts against argument to the effect that people, who don't know what they are doing, will put their money in companies like Worldcom and lose it all).

MAllen

Feb 4 2005

Last paragraph I meant to say that the mutual funds are administered by individual companies, which in turn are regulated by the government.

MAllen

Feb 4 2005

still skeptical about the 20 year bracket. People don't retire only every 20 years. Plus, it seems like you could get better returns on the funds in the Social Security trust fund without privatizing the whole thing. It seems like there's lots of things we can do, aside from tossing the baby out with the bathwater. And, to clarify, I'm sure that you didn't mean "people who don't know what they are doing" when they invested in WorldCom. They didn't know that they were being lied to by the company, and so were defrauded of their money. For me, I'm hugely skeptical of this because the Bush administration lied to get us into war, and now they are lying about why they want to privatize Social Security. I don't believe there's a crisis, and I don't believe that this is the only way to fix it. It annoys me, because this is an important and very complicated issue that I really want to understand. They're trying to scare us into a change - and if their ideas are so strong, why do we need to be frightened into making the changes?

kate

Feb 4 2005

As I understand it, the lies of omission on this are the worst. They're overblowing "crisis"; they aren't telling people (except when pressured) that they must borrow a couple trillion dollars to get these accounts going; and they're not exactly emphasizing that they plan to change the rules of the program to lessen the amounts of benefits future folks will get. There is no free lunch, guys, or massive Social Security overhaul. This is ideology, pure and simple. That's fine -- but they need to start being honest about what they're up to.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

They don't retire every 20 years, you're right. Generally people work 45 years preparing for retirement. See link below. You can't get better returns on the existing system - never have and never will. Proponents are really claiming that you can - only that in the doomsday scenario in which the market blanks-out it would be better to have virtually no return (existing system) than the risk, albeit a doomsday scenario risk, in which you have a whip-out of the market and people are left with nothing. In essence, the argument against privitization is one based on the doomsday scenario (this is an oversimplifaction), because all available data suggests positive returns over the long-haul in the market. You can't get a better return because of the way the current system works. Today's workers are paying for today's retirees, i.e., the money you put towards SS is not being saved for you; it is being transferred to someone who is currently retired. Any leftover moneys are then spent by congress - they give the treasure an IOU, put it in the SS "deposit-box," and then spend it. When FDR introduced this system it was fine because you had about 17 workers for every 1 retiree. We're now approaching the time of having 1-2 workers per every retiree. As you can see, it becomes difficult for 1-2 workers, off of the current SS tax, to pay for today's retirees' financial needs. As for WCom, you're right - they were lied to. What I meant is that many, many people don't know much about markets and shouldn't be placing money in individual stocks. And a common misconception about privitzing SS is that it would allow you to do exactly that. It would not. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/articles/mt-04-24-98.html

MAllen

Feb 4 2005

Correct me if I'm wrong -- getting a better return also can mean getting a worse return. Sounds like rolling the dice to me.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

I don't follow the statement "getting a better return also can mean getting a worse return"...I'm sure I'm missing the obvious, but it's escaping me...

MAllen

Feb 4 2005

The social security program was not designed to maximize individuals' retirement wealth. It was supposed to be a safety net to ensure that the elderly do not suffer, because society believed that to not do so leads to social instability. Hence the name "social security." It seems though that even this basic social welfare program is now under attack, and not just by Republicans: the first onslaught came at the hands of President Clinton, who signed into law the so-called Welfare "Reform" Bill, which in fact repealed Article VI of the Social Security Act, Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Justin

Feb 4 2005

You're right, Justin: one more reason I don't like Bill Clinton. He was too good at being a faux Republican, and sold too many people out to get power. I don't respect that.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

Because individuals own the risk. And, as I've said, if investing is so easy, why aren't we all rich? I don't think that it's a doomsday scenario that we're talking about stuff we've seen happen over the past few years. don't know about you, but ALL of my investments have taken dramatic hits over the past few years - not just the individual stocks. Mutual funds were down too. It ain't doomsday - it happened. Still think this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and the only ones certain to get rich are the investment houses, who charge fees for all of these transactions. And, not lovin' the trillions we need to borrow to make this happen. I really don't understand why we're talking about borrowing trillions in order to make this happen when there's no crisis and we're already trillions in debt and spending billions each month on a war. Social Security made need to change, but not necessarily right now, and not in this way.

kate

Feb 4 2005

Because individuals own the risk. Which is exactly the ideology. What Bush is not telling people is the down side of his plan. He just sells the rosy, and misleading, upside as if no one is ever going to have to give up a thing, or risk a thing.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

"The social security program was not designed to maximize individuals' retirement wealth. It was supposed to be a safety net to ensure that the elderly do not suffer, because society believed that to not do so leads to social instability." One: you're right, but that does not mean that the purpose behind social security cannot be changed (and many would argue that the change would be for the better). Two, I don't think that SS, as it is now administered, can continue to service its original purpose. I don't think it can do this, again, because the way it is financed - they numbers just aren't there. I also don't think that any of the non-market options advanced can serve the original purpose. The best option I see is privitazation. It will admittedly alter the purpose. I'm sure that is where we disagree, because I don't think that would be a bad thing. In short, assuming privitazation can maximize retirement wealth (which I stronly feel that it can), what is wrong with that? As for the investor owning the risk, very true. I would only add that most existing plans have safety nets built into them in the event someone was wiped out - I'm short on the details of how this works; only know that it is there.

MAllen

Feb 4 2005

MAllen, how do you feel about the government borrowing a couple trillion dollars in order to set up the private accounts? And do you truly believe there is no "risk" in privatization? Have you seen what privatization, say, has done to the ambulance service? It's survival of the fittest out thereóand I'm talking people, not companies. Yes, I believe privatization can indeed "maximize retirement wealth"ófor some people. It's kind of like a casino -- some folks get mighty rich. Others, well, maybe they didn't make smart decisions. Or they weren't lucky. There is plenty wrong with gambling with Social Security money -- IF you're concerned that everyone is covered. If you're not, and you're confident that you'll be of the ones who invests your money in a "smart" way, then why not support it? The problem, of course, is that by the time people realize the "survival of the fittest" part, Social Security will be destroyed if the ideologues have their way about it. It's not like you can go backward on it.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

As far as borrowing the trillions, that is a huge concern, and, honestly, I'm just not that familiar the details on what it will take on the front end to implement the system, other than that it will be very costly. I suppose one reason I'm not frightened by having to front such a cost is that I think at some point in time, regardless of which alternative is chosen, we will have to pay enormous sums of money to salvage the system. And I think the sooner we attempt to salvage it, the less amount of money that will be (even though it's already a huge amount). Yes, I do believe the is risk in privization. The question is, how much? This is where I think the real debate occurs. When looking at historical rates of returns of market funds, I just don't think the risk is signficant. I'm willing to go even further and say that I think the risk is very, very small. Others are more risk averse than me. They might see a 99% chance of success and a 1% chance of failure (making these numbers up), and decide the 1% chance of failure isn't worth it. Then I think you have to weigh the risk of privitazation, whatever you think it is, against the risk of the current system. I think the handwriting is on the wall for the current system: it will fail. At least as it currently operates (everyone agrees on this point; just a debate about when) Now we could simply try to "patch it up" - e.g., raising taxes and reducing benefits. As a policy matter, I simply think this option is outweighed by benefits of privitazation - especially given projections on how much benefits would have to be reduced and/or taxes be raised. And, while I'm sure there is much disagreement on this, many studies suggests that those on the lowest end of the economic ladder would stand to gain the most from privitization. And, simply in terms of the risk of an individuals loosing their personal retirement because of poor investment decisions, I think that the way the systems operate is that they tightly close off the ability of individuals to make wild decisions and throw their money away. Again, they are given a limited number of choices amoung competing funds. Returns on these funds are regularly posted. Individuals are free to move money between these funds. I trust people to be able to see if the fund they have their money is gaining a positive return or not.

MAllen

Feb 4 2005

you're right, but that does not mean that the purpose behind social security cannot be changed (and many would argue that the change would be for the better). True, times change and government programs can become obsolete. What do you think that the new purpose of a social security-type program is? In short, assuming privitazation can maximize retirement wealth (which I stronly feel that it can), what is wrong with that? If this is the new purpose, maximizing retirement wealth, then I would argue that there is no need to privatize anything. That is, if we as a society decide that providing some sort of safety net for the elderly is not a valid public good, that all we are concerned with is the maximization of individual retirement wealth, then there is no need for a government social security program at all, thus no need to create personal savings accounts and other such "privatization" strategies; let the government stay out of it and individuals make their own economic decisions concerning their retirement. This is the best way to maximize personal retirement wealth. However, we should think seriously about abandoning the concept of a social security program for the public good.

Justin

Feb 4 2005

well, kp, at least it was only pepto. and justin, I appreciate your comment, that's a new twist I think. I can only add I am heartened to see the whole idea is sinking fast, everywhere, even among republicans like Olympia Snow for one.. Dub. is just creating fear again, why does he do that? hmmm. there is no crisis, tons of info everywhere (ask me) . safety nets are vital, ditto. the market is not safe , esp. for those who don't pay atttention. ditto. and , the transition will put the deficit into the stratosphere and bankrupt the government. good plan, if you don't want a government. ha. sorry if i'm repeating anything that has been said, i am so tired of this topic already and hope it expires soon. there are way more important issues, like civil rights and the environment, ..do they still exist?

sunshine

Feb 4 2005

What do you think that the new purpose of a social security-type program is? Good question, Justin. I second it. Re the trillions, MAllen, the numbers are all over the place. A few links to more info ... From Business Week, that communist rag : In Jan. 11, Bush kicked off his new campaign by telling a town hall meeting that younger workers should be able to take some of their payroll tax and "set it aside in the form of a personal savings account." Social Security only provides returns of about 2% a year after inflation, and private accounts, says the President, could top that easily if they were invested even partially in stocks. Explained Bush at a press conference back on Dec. 20: "Over time, that rate of return would enable that person to...make up for the deficiencies in the current system...and more likely get that which was promised." Is he right? Are private accounts really a good idea? The short answer is, they could be -- but only if Americans are willing to wait several generations for the higher returns to make up for Social Security's expected shortfall. The gap is so large -- $3.7 trillion in today's dollars -- that even if the stock market matched its historical average, private accounts wouldn't fill the gap for something like 90 to 100 years. And that doesn't even count the extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs required to set up such accounts. ... [T]he President has pointed repeatedly to the suggestions of his 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Because that group's blueprint contains the rudiments of just about any of the private-account schemes out there, it's a good starting point to assess how a partially privatized system might play out over the long haul. Its primary plan calls for allowing workers under 55 to divert four percentage points of their 12.4% annual Social Security payroll tax into private accounts, up to a maximum of $1,000 a year. It also slashes the future growth of Social Security benefits to wipe out the shortfall -- relying on the accounts to make up what amounts to only a portion of the difference. Indeed, today's 20-year-olds would see their promised benefit cut nearly in half, leaving them a check equal to just 15% of their annual income when they retire. Of course, no politician wants to be the first to deliver bad news, so Bush hasn't yet indicated that his plan might involve reducing benefits from today's promised levels. But now, some Administration officials are starting to concede that private accounts can't earn enough to fix all of Social Security's ills. White House adviser Peter H. Wehner made the point explicitly in a memo widely circulated in early January.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

More from BusinessWeek piece: At the same time, the stock market can't provide enough extra returns for private accounts to close the entire gap within 75 years. Look at what would happen to Social Security in the aggregate, rather than from the perspective of an individual. If all workers 55 and younger invested 4% of their pay into a private account, that would create a $4.6 trillion hole over this time. Assuming a 6.5% annual stock market return on that 4%, however, about $8 trillion would pile up after 75 years, according to calculations by Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic & Policy Research, a liberal think tank in Washington that opposes personal accounts. Net it all out, and that would still leave the system $300 billion shy of plugging the $3.7 trillion hole. "You can't solve the shortfall without slower benefit growth or some source of added funds," agrees Harvard University economics professor Martin S. Feldstein, a leading privatization proponent. Remember, too, that none of this includes the $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs that would be required to set up private accounts. Because Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, allowing workers to divert 4% of their pay into private accounts would leave the SSA short of funds to cover current retirees' benefit checks. This cost is by definition transitory, since the diverted money eventually would be put back into the system. After all, as workers with private accounts retired, their check from the traditional Social Security system would be lower, to offset the money that went into their account. However, that wouldn't happen for several decades, forcing the government to borrow the difference to keep the system afloat in the interim. The true nature of this cost has ignited an almost theological debate. The Bush Commission plan would require Washington to borrow at least $160 billion a year in the early years. Since the federal government is already running a $400 billion-plus deficit, the central question is what the economic impact would be of jacking up Uncle Sam's indebtedness by 40%.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

The thing that drives me the craziest about Bush & Co. on this one is that it is a major reform that will affect generations to come -- and they're too political to lay all the facts on the table for the people to consider.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

This piece from Henry J. Aaron, Brookings senior fellow, economic studies: Not only would privatization expose workers to risks they are poorly equipped to handle, it would subject their children to debts they should not be asked to bear. The federal budget faces deficits estimated at $5 trillion over the next decade. Diverting 2 percentage points of payroll taxes from Social Security into individual accounts would add just over $1 trillion to that. The three privatization plans developed by a commission President Bush appointed to design ways to privatize Social Security would each add $4 trillion to government debt by 2040, according to the commission's own estimates. Increasing government borrowing so recklessly would threaten the financial and economic stability of the nation. Siphoning off 2 percentage points of the payroll tax would also hasten the day when the Social Security trust fund is exhausted or benefits must be slashed. Closing Social Security's projected long-term deficit - sooner rather than later - is desirable. But rather than undermining Social Security by diverting payroll taxes into private accounts, Congress should move to buttress the system. A plan introduced by Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) would do just that. It would increase from 85% to 90% the portion of earnings subject to the payroll tax, adjust benefits for inflation more accurately than current methods do and dedicate to Social Security revenue from a tax on estates in excess of $3.5 million. This would close all of the projected deficit over the next 75 years, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

Interesting numbers from the articicles, and, if true, of uppercut proportions(although I'm yet to see an alternative proposed, and the data I've seen says that the same old course will be even more expensive). I'll have to look over them during the weekend (even republicans don't like to work on saturday:). Justin, back to you as well. You posed a great qustion and I have an answer (not that anyone cares), so I'll get back to you. I have the strange feeling that on the issue of SS privitization I'm the lone voice in the wilderness. If so, then I love it. Rather be talking to people who stronly disagree with me than a bunch of people who strongly agree with me. Eventually, with time, I will correct all socialist tendencies on this board:)

MAllen

Feb 5 2005

STRAW POLL: yes, I'm a butt for doing this, but how many of you out there would honestly leave your money with the SSA(Social Security Adn.) if you had the chance to put it in a mutual fund(your money). Undoubtably someone will want to sidetrack me and call the question unfair. If you will, and obviously I can't make you, be honest.

MAllen

Feb 6 2005

"socialist tendences"? Please, Matt. It's jabs like that will make the rest of us start ignoring you. You're smarter than that, I think. I know you think you're joking, but smart people get tired to the goofy "socialist" and "communist" jabs that tend to be designed to disparage folks who might not agree with the folks who make such jokes. Nice preemptive strike on this one.

DonnaLadd

Feb 6 2005

By the way, call me a socialist if you will, but right now I'm most concerned about the massive debt entailed in Bush's Social Security program that young people are going to be saddled with for years to come. I'm just not down with "borrow and spend" Republicanism.

DonnaLadd

Feb 6 2005

It was completely meant as a joke. What's wrong with a socialist anyway? I'm pretty sure I was one in high school. If not one, then I was darn close to it. Matter of fact, in a political poll in high school, I was the second to most liberal - and I was beat out by a declared socialist. I"m a smart-a** at times (although I mean that about the high school poll results). Sorry about that.

MAllen

Feb 6 2005

You're right on the whole though. I really shouldn't have thrown that out. Sorry about that - really (I'm afraid that even in my reply above I came off as a smart-A). It was honestly meant as a funny between friends. Sometimes I'm too quick to assume what will offend people and what will not. Didn't mean to light the fire. -Matt

MAllen

Feb 7 2005

Eventually, with time, I will correct all socialist tendencies on this board:) You're not talking to a bunch of pinkos; I, for one, consider myself a conservative of sorts. But, personally, I'm fed up with this recent revival of absolute, laissez-faire capitalism in politics. We've never had a free market in the United States, and for good reason: we're a republic. In a republic, free democratic decisions affect the processes of an unrestrained market, and often they are at odds. This is okay, though. The framers of the constitution said that the purpose of government is twofold: to secure individual liberties (chief among these include private property and wealth), and to promote the common good, what Madison called "the permanent and aggregate interest of the community." So, to your question. but how many of you out there would honestly leave your money with the SSA(Social Security Adn.) if you had the chance to put it in a mutual fund(your money). Of course if I had the choice, acting on self-interest, I would rather take what I'm paying currently in payroll taxes and invest it on my own, though since I'm young and risky, I'd probably invest in real estate, not a mutual fund. This isn't the real question, however. The question is what do we do when people, who whatever reason, do not save prudently for their retirement, and are old and not capable of working to provide for all their needs? Do we let them suffer? From a purely market perspective, yes. But we, through democratic processes, determined that it is in the interest of the common good to provide assistance to these people.

Justin

Feb 7 2005

What Justin said in response to your straw poll. ;-) Matt, I know you were joking; however, it's always good to consider whether a particular joke is appropriate, right? And in this case, anyone "left" of Tom Delay (which can also mean right of a lot of Republicans) can get sick of being called a socialist or a communist, when it's such an ignorant characterization. It would be like us teasing you about being a fascist every time you mention one of your ideas. You wouldn't like that either, I presume. It's also offensive when someone generalizes about the bloggers here, being that there are many different viewpoints along the spectrum that vary on individual issues. We'll never get anywhere if people, and the media and ideologues, keep trying to box everyone into two extreme boxes: either you're a conservative like me or you're a pinko. It's just silly and offensive. Thus, the sensitivity.

DonnaLadd

Feb 7 2005

But we do forgive you. Thanks for apologizing. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Feb 7 2005

Speaking of moving on, Moveon.org just sent out this alert about stopping Bush's Social Security experiment: Three weeks ago, we launched MoveOn's campaign to save Social Security and announced a goal of 200,000 petition signers. We've blown past that goal -- more than 360,000 Americans have joined the effort so far. They're rejecting the Bush-led effort to privatize Social Security and cut benefits. It's a great start, but together, we can get to 500,000 signers on the petition before MoveOn members deliver it to Congress in just ten days. If you haven't had a chance to sign our petition, please take just one minute right now to do so by clicking on the link below. http://www.moveon.org/socialsecurity/ After you sign, please ask your friends, family and colleagues to get involved by forwarding them this e-mail. We're setting a new goal of 500,000 petition signers before Congress returns home in ten days when we'll deliver the petitions during in-person meetings. The more signers we have, the more they'll listen to our concerns -- and the less likely Bush's plan will be successful. Members of Congress know that for every person who signs a petition, there are dozens who feel the same way. A broad coalition of citizen organizations is opposing Social Security privatization, from seniors at AARP to young rockers at Rock the Vote to faith groups like Catholic Charities USA. Young and old are united. Great leadership is being provided by the Campaign for America's Future, the AFL-CIO and US Action. But the most important voices that members of Congress will be listening to are the voices of their constituents -- you.

DonnaLadd

Feb 10 2005