Perry: Let states opt out of Social Security

[onestepforward]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/texas-gov-states-opt-social-security/

Appearing on television Thursday, Texas Governor Rick Perry, a potential contender for the Republican nomination in 2012, said that he wants states to be able to opt-out of Social Security.

On CNN's Parker/Spitzer, hosted by Democrat and former New York governor Eliot Spitzer and political columnist Kathleen Parker, Perry compared Social Security to a ponzi scheme and said that Americans want Washington to stop spending so much money.

"Here's what I think would be a very wise thing," he began. "In 1981, Matagorda, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties all opted out of the Social Security program for their employees. Today, their program is very, very well-funded and there is no question about whether it’s going to be funded in the out years. It’s there. That’s an option out there."

"So, you want to let people opt out?" responded Spitzer.

"I think, let the states decide if that’s what's best for their cities," Perry replied.

"So the states will let people opt out of Social Security?" Spitzer asked

"They should," the recently reelected Texas governor said.

In his forthcoming book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, Perry is highly critical of federal government policies. Though not on sale until November 15th, excerpts were recently leaked to reporters.

In the book, Perry criticizes government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance, but seems to exempt America's largest expenditures on defense, national security and foreign military aid.

Instead, the Perry attacks social welfare programs as "fraudulent systems designed to take in a lot of money at the front and pay out none in the end."

"This unsustainable fiscal insanity is the true legacy of Social Security and the New Deal," he wrote.

-snip-

Folks, it is going to be a long four years.
Perry will be on the Daily Show next Monday.
:puke:

[sonias]

1. And the kooks across the land love this talk

He's running for "higher office". Anyone who thinks that social security should be in the hands of the same bankers and financial industry that brought us the mortgage meltdown is totally insane. And Perry is twice that bat shit crazy.:crazy:

And CNN rather than asking Perry those tough questions, let him spew his ridiculous ideas without holding him accountable for his failures. How crazy would it be to let Perry and his corrupt minions manage the retirement funds of the whole of Texas. If you think Perry has been corrupt privatizing Texas services now, can you imagine if had billions at his command? How many quid pro quo deals and kickbacks he could command and how much money would be siphoned off from Texan's retirement funds in the name of "administrative costs"?

So this experiment that Matagorda, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties have engaged in has been successful. That's great. I'm happy for them. But these pension plans are a small experiment and do not take into account how this would work for a much wider pool like all the state employees. Think of the pension plans that IBM and other tech giants promised their retirees? Remember how those worked out?

I don't trust Perry or the bankers one bit on managing the retirement funds for Texas. Not a chance! :puke:

[Melissa G]

2. A state executive who has us 25- 28 billion in the red obviously

is not a financial genius. Keep these pubs away from my retirement!

[txlibdem]

12. Perry is twice that bat shit crazy.

And yet our fellow Texans happily re-elected him.

Now, who's bat shit crazy?!!? :crazy:

[sonias]

13. Hey I'm willing to toss anyone that voted for Perry

In the double bat shit crazy pile. Obviously these people are not paying attention or are drunk on Faux News koolaid. So they deserve some of the blame too.

But Perry is at the top of the double bat shit crazy heap, because he's the guy actually speaks for them. :crazy::crazy:

[txlibdem]

15. Gotta agree with you

I can grumble about how stupid/gullible most people are later...

[Generic Brad]

3. What's the reaction to this in Texas?

Is there actual populist support among Republicans and Independents for this suicidal proposal?

[onestepforward]

4. This is the first time I've heard anything about it.

Perry apparently wrote about this in his upcoming book to be released on 11/15. I don't think that most Texans would be on board with this.

[sonias]

5. I'm sure there is some support from the right wing

The ones that hate the government you know. They want Washington to lay off their money! :crazy: I would not use the word "populist" for the group that support it.

I wouldn't not put it past them to try this on the next legislative session in 2011.

Remember what Molly Ivins said about the Texas Legislature -

NOW With Bill Moyers 5/16/03
(snip)
And Texas has always been the national laboratory for bad government. I mean, if you want to see a bad idea tried, we've tried it. Texas public policy is kind of like Hungarian wine. It does not travel well. You should not try taking it across the Red River.

Everything Molly said in that interview is still true today.

(snip)
MOYERS: Whose pain?

IVINS: Poor children. Old people. Handicapped citizens. And I mean, I wish I were exaggerating. But this is the weakest, the poorest, the most frail, the youngest and the oldest Texans are the ones who are being hurt here. And I really think that if Texans knew exactly who was getting hurt and how much, they'd be willing to pay some more in taxes.

And there are ways to pay taxes, increase taxes. The Republicans should know this. You know the old joke is, "Let's don't tax you. Let's don't tax me. Let's tax that man behind the tree." Where there are lots of men behind trees in Texas. That is to say lobbyists over the years have inserted so many loopholes into tax laws that they look like doilies. I mean, you wouldn't have to introduce a new tax. All you'd have to do is close the loopholes in some of the old taxes and you could raise enough revenue.

MOYERS: But the guys behind the tree who benefit from those tax loopholes have made the big political contributions to the politicians who are supposed to find the money.

IVINS: That's right. They make the big political contributions. They come to the legislature and lobby. And the whole system becomes more and more corrupt by the year.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

[TEXASYANKEE]

6. Is this true?

"In 1981, Matagorda, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties all opted out of the Social Security program for their employees. Today, their program is very, very well-funded and there is no question about whether it’s going to be funded in the out years. It’s there. That’s an option out there."

Is this, in fact, a true statement? The way Repubs spew lies and are never fact-checked (and Perry obviously wasn't by Spitzer), I want to see this statement verified.

[sonias]

7. It is true that they have a self funded retirement plan

There are other agencies that do a similar thing. Texas County and District Retirement System for example. TCDRS.org I don't believe that one is a substitute for social security withholding however.

Essentially it's a retirement plan and any employee of any county in Texas or other taxing district can join. So these retirement systems are just pools of peoples group savings that are administered by a fiduciary agent that estimates retirement benefits based on the amount of money individuals put in using actuarial tables. They are always going to be solvent because they only pay out what an individual put in, plus a little interest. Most of these plans have a match by the employer, so to the employee the benefit is greater than what they put in.

This is a supplemental plan, but the Matagorda, Brazoria and Galveston plan is similar except for the fact that they opted out of SSA.

Is this better than social security? Not for the bigger pool of the picture. This type of opt out is very similar to the insurance industry cherry picking "healthy" clients. If the whole point is to make sure the older retirement population has some level of basic living retirement check, then a hundred million different plans spread all over the U.S. would be a disaster. But the financial sector would of course love it, since they would get admin fees on 100 million different plans.

Here is an old story on the success and failure of this plan from the NY Times dated 3/19/2005:

In Texas, A Model For Bush Proposal ; County Opted Out Of Social Security
(snip)
It is an idea long promoted by free-market thinkers and others who would like to shift the responsibility and spiraling cost of retirement away from government and onto individuals, who in turn would have a shot at greater financial rewards. Critics say such an approach weakens Social Security's safety net and opens the possibility that the nation's retirement system could produce financial winners and losers. The experience of workers in Galveston offers evidence for both views.

(snip)
But the advantages are less clear for lower-paid workers. Outside experts, including researchers for the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration, have found that workers earning less than $17,100 a year in 1999 would have done better under Social Security, mainly because of annual cost-of-living adjustments. The Galveston plan offers no such increases.

[onestepforward]

8. Thanks for the information.

I wasn't familiar with this type of self-funded retirement plan. It isn't surprising that lower paid workers don't do better than those with Social Security.

[sonias]

9. So you can understand how the republican party of "I'm in it for me"

Can sell this very easily to workers. Why should you pay for those lower salaried loser workers? Right?

Same kind of tactic they used in the mortgage crisis? Why should you be paying to bail-out those homes that those "poor people" shouldn't have bought. You work hard for your money and those poor people are just parasites wanting to take your last dime.

You know this campaign is already being worked on in the wings.

They won't be happy until every last social safety net program has been decimated. :puke:

[texastoast]

10. So how do we get our money back from these fuckers before they give it to Wall Street?

Satan Perry notwithstanding.

If "they" are going to do away with Social Security and Medicare, I want a refund of every penny paid in me, and a refund to go to all my employers.

And where are the real figures--how much was paid in over the years since the New Deal and how much was paid out? Those are numbers I haven't seen.

[alarimer]

11. WE pay into Social Security

You have no fucking say in whether we can collect or not. FUCK YOU RICK PERRY, You piece of shit.

Those of us who have the 40 quarters necessary to qualify don't even need to opt-out or not. We will get it when we are eligible.

I suspect they are going to de-fund our retirement plan, which is a rare actual pension program. Again I pay into that and am now vested so I am not sure this fucker can actually do anything.

I want Rick Perry to get sick and DIE. I hope he dies in car wreck. Fucking asshole.

[txlibdem]

14. Have no fear. You're right about that.

Once you've paid in for the requisite number of quarters there is NO ONE who can take away your right to collect social security benefits, but opting out for a number of years will reduce your monthly payment of course.

What is at issue are the younger workers or those who haven't met the SS criteria before the Pukes pull the plug. And, just for the record, I think the Pukes can pull out of SS for state and local workers at will. I don't think it's mandatory.

It's not always bad to be able to opt out of SS. A private plan will give you a better return if there are no economic downturns: in other words when the sun is shining and the sky is blue, it is better not to be in SS. It's all about luck.

So you have to ask yourself, "Do ya feel lucky, punk? Do ya?"