Hillary and seniors

This is a candidate-supporter diary

Seniors are our parents, our grandparents, in some blogger's cases, they are seniors themselves.  

Social security funds, which should be in a lockbox, have been raided time and again to pay for other "emergencies," and now we are told that Social Security is in a crisis, that it won't be solvent after 2040, that it needs fixing.  Prescription drug benefits are a major issue, as are other health related issue like full access to Medicare, stem cell research and other related issues.

Against that backdrop, let's look at some of the reasons why seniors are Hillary Clinton's strongest demographic, the group that gives Clinton her most lopsided support.  Let's also look why seniors are absolutely crucial for the upcoming elections (both primaries/caucuses and the general election.)

SENIORS AND THEIR HISTORIC ROLE IN ELECTIONS

Individuals 55 years of age and over are the most prolific voters.  Ergo, that age group makes the most important voter block to any politician.

http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politi cs/4-10-28SeniorVote.htm

Almost 70% of all seniors cast votes in a general election.  In the rest of the population the percentage is below 50%.  

When it comes to primaries and caucuses, the share of the "older" vote is incredibly high.  A full 64% of Iowa caucus voters in 2004 were 55 years of age or older.  Almost TWO-THIRDS of all Iowa caucus voters are over 55 years of age.  In the New Hampshire's primary, the 55 or older population makes up over 50% of all voters.   If you win a lionshare of that vote, you win the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, naturally.  Not to speak of the Florida primary and all the other primaries which show a share of over 50% in the over-55 demogroup.

Clinton's strongest support in basically all the polls we have seen comes from the 55 and over demographic, the one group that consistently shows up to vote in caucuses, primaries, general elections, rain or shine.

WHAT IS THE ROOT OF CLINTON'S STRONG SUPPORT AMONGST SENIORS?

Well, there is her Senate voting history.  Unlike her main competitors John Edwards, who did not focus strongly on senior issues while in the Senate and Obama, who has not much of a record of fighting for senior issues, Hillary Clinton has been leading on many issues important to seniors.

More after the break

HISTORY OF FIGHTING FOR SENIORS

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a strong pro-senior voting record.

Clinton scores 100% by the ARA on senior issues

The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security. The Alliance believes that all older and retired persons have a responsibility to strive to create a society that incorporates these goals and rights and that retirement provides them with opportunities to pursue new and expanded activities with their unions, civic organizations and their communities.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: ARA website  
---------------------------------------- ------

1. Strongly opposes Privatizing Social Security.

2.Voted No on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security

3.Clinton is a member of the Senate Aging Commission.  The commission calls the Congress' and the nation's attention to issues affecting older Americans. The Committee continually reviews Medicare's performance and also regularly reviews pension coverage and employment opportunities for older Americans. It has conducted oversight of major programs like Social Security and the Older Americans Act and has crusaded against fraud targeting the elderly and Federal programs on which the elderly depend.  

4.  Primary sponsor of the Positive Aging Act.  This legislation is designed to make mental health services for older adults an integral part of primary care services in community settings and to extend them to other settings where seniors reside and receive services. The bill would provide competitive grants to interdisciplinary teams of mental health professionals working in collaboration with primary care to identify and treat mental health disorders in seniors.

5.  Caregiving.    Together with John Warner (R-VA) Clinton wrote the Lifespan Respite Care Act.  This bill authorizes competitive grants to states to make quality respite care available and accessible to family caregivers, regardless of age or disability. The bill allows grantees to identify, coordinate and build on existing federal, state and community-based respite resources and funding streams.

6.  Because many children in our country are being cared for by grandparents and other relatives, Clinton introduced the Kinship Caregiver Support Act with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) in the 108th Congress. This legislation establishes a Kinship Navigator Program to assists kinship caregivers in navigating their way through existing programs and services; establishes a Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program to provide federal assistance to states for subsidized guardianship programs to better serve the needs of kinship care families; and ensures that relatives are notified when children enter foster care.

7. Co-chairs the Congressional Alzheimers Task Force with Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Representatives Edward Markey (D-MA) and Christopher Smith (R-NJ) to educate Congress and the public about the disease, encourages increased research funding, and fosters bipartisan discussion regarding public policies to assist individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and their families.

8. Strongly supports funding for stem cell research designed to combat many diseases.  Stem cell research has shown promise particularly in the fields of aging diseases such as Alzheimers.  

SENIOR ISSUES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

Radio Iowa: Clinton focuses on Elder Issues

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm? objectid=6A788573-0CCA-7FEF-12B51BEDF7E0 521C

"I consider myself a modern progressive. I'm proud of all of the progress we've made as a nation, but it didn't happen by accident. It didn't happen by wishing for it. It happened because people came together and worked to achieve them -- and sometimes over great odds -- to reach what we saw as goals for our country," Clinton said. "Today, we face a new set of challenges." (photo: Hillary Clinton campaigning with her husband Bill earlier this year in Iowa)

Clinton is calling for a new attempt to make the Social Security system solvent, a rewrite of the new prescription drug benefit for seniors and stricter government oversight of long-term insurance.

"Unfortunately, we're not addressing any of these issues and planning for the future. Our current president hasn't called on us to make a national commitment to saving Social Security and Medicare. In fact, he's tried to privatize Social Security," Clinton said. "...And his answer to the prescription drug needs of our seniors is a plan that takes a Ph.D in bureaucracy to try to figure out."

Clinton did not mention her rivals for the Democratic party's presidential nomination. Instead, she repeatedly attacked the current Republican President. Clinton criticized Bush for pursuing a "you're on your own" society. "And if you look at 'you're on your own' -- you take the first letters -- that's the Yoyo society where you go up and you go down and somebody else is pulling and holding the strings on you," Clinton said, to applause from the crowd of 400 who gathered in the band room at Waukee High School to hear her speak.

Clinton chose to stress the theme of her new television commercials which began airing in Iowa this week, telling the crowd she shares the "vision" former presidents like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman had for the country.

"For too many people, it's like they're invisible to the president. You know, we don't see what's happening in the lives of people here in Iowa and across the country from this White House and I think that's outrageous because so many people have worked hard their entire lives and they realize they can't afford to retire," Clinton said.

The average age of an Iowa Caucus-goer is about 55, and many in the crowd were older. Clinton invited two elderly women up on stage to tell stories of their pocketbook struggles.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Clinton Discusses Health Care Issues in Speech at Conference Sponsored by Senior Group

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_repor ts/health2008dr.cfm?DR_ID=47294

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday during a speech at a conference in Washington, D.C., said that U.S. seniors are "not invisible" to her and that as president she would seek to reduce long-term care costs, CQ HealthBeat reports. At the conference, sponsored by the Alliance of Retired Americans, Clinton said that many seniors currently cannot afford the cost of long-term care.

She also said that she would seek to end the use of fraudulent practices in which companies increase costs or deny benefits to seniors who have purchased long-term care insurance policies. "We must unravel the deception of fraudsters and what they do to people," Clinton said. She said seniors should have the ability to file lawsuits against companies that misuse their personal information and proposed to establish a national telecommunications database that would help protect seniors from fraudulent practices (Bartolf, CQ HealthBeat, 9/4).

In addition, Clinton said that CMS should have the ability to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies on prices for medications under the Medicare prescription drug benefit and that U.S. residents should have the ability to purchase lower-cost medications from Canada and other industrialized nations.

Clinton also said that her health care proposal reduces "costs for everybody, improves quality (of treatment) for everybody and covers everybody" (Hess, CongressDaily, 9/5). In May, Clinton announced a proposal to reduce health care costs during a speech at George Washington University, and last month, she announced a proposal to improve quality (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 8/24). She plans to announce a proposal to expand health insurance to all residents in the next few weeks (CQ HealthBeat, 9/4).

Watch the video of the speech here:

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast /health2008hc.cfm?hc=2338

Clinton rejects raising age for Social Security benefits

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ nation/la-na-clinton8sep08,1,1330631.sto ry?ctrack=2&cset=true

I have talked about this particular issue and Clinton's appearance at the AARP's annual expo held in Boston in front of 27,000 seniors in a recent diary.   Read it here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/8/11574 3/9915

Watch video of the speech here:

http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/ necn.html?catID=80780&clipid=1732647 &autoStart=true&mute=false&c ontinuous=true

Let me just reiterate that I found it rather interesting and disappointing that this main event held by the AARP, their national expo held once a year, only had one representative from the Democratic cadre of presidential candidates attending:  Hillary Clinton.    Clinton's closest rival, Barack Obama, will also be missing from the televised AARP debate forum in Iowa.

CONCLUSION

Given the sheer numbers of voters seniors bring to the table, this is obviously the most important constituency of them all.  Clinton has been courting them strongly, and she has the background, gravitas and heart to convince them that she is going to fight for them all the way.   If Clinton wins the nomination and perhaps eventually the presidency, look no further than this age group for the reasons.  Of course, as is well known, Clinton is supported very strongly by women in general, which is usually (rightfully so) seen as the main reason she has strong leads over her rivals.  But, Clinton's strong support amongst seniors is often overlooked, but given their strong numbers in precincts to vote in primaries/caucuses and the general election, should not be.   Of course, many seniors are also women, even more so in later ages, as we men usually leave earlier than our "better halfs."   (Had to bring the "better half" part in here, as my wife wants to read this tomorrow. :-) )



Display:


Re: Hillary and seniors (2.00 / 1)

Excellent diary, georgep!


by hwc on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:43:54 AM EST

Re: Hillary and seniors (2.00 / 1)

Not sure why this is being posted on Tuesday, which is actually for Edwards front-page posts.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:10:48 AM EST

Re: Hillary and seniors (none / 0)

I did not have this ready to post until after midnight last night.  Sorry about that.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you're going to take this the wrong way... (1.33 / 3)

but it needs to be raised: if it wasn't ready by your deadline, then why did you post it?  you knew that it wasn't monday, you knew that monday was hillary's day, but you did it anyway?  do you and jerome have a different understanding (say, eg, that monday is actually monday 6am-tuesday 6am)?  if so, shouldn't these non-traditional understandings been made clear to us?

it's very, very interesting that you didn't see a problem with posting this on tuesday.  i think the people who are writing these are doing yeoman's work, and it makes mydd better -- but people should follow the rules that were originally laid out (or, if they are changed, or have a non-traditional understanding, this should have been made clear to us)...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're going to take this the wrong way... (none / 0)

is there seriously bitching about this? There are still 3 front page posts from Monday on the main page.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're going to take this the wrong way... (2.00 / 1)

This is starting to seem to be just pettiness.  You made your point, whatever it may be.  I posted this at 3:30 last night, did not think an Edwards diary would precede that one.  Complain to the moderators about this "gigantic" time issue, if you must.    

Do you have anything substantive to say about  the diary or is your only intent to pick another fight?  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:49:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

nope, i made my point... (none / 0)

i thought it needed to be said, i said it, and have nothing to add.  i think the candidate diaries are great, and don't tend to comment on them.  people put in a lot of work.  i wish that someone could have promoted the edwards diary posted before yours so that it sat above yours, but that's a quibble.  it doesn't help, george, that you knew what you wanted to write for almost a week...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're going to take this the wrong way... (none / 0)


georgep,

I can't believe you posted it on Tuesday. It is supposed to be Edward's day not Hillary's.

I only visit MyDD on Tuesday. Unlike most people, I want to hear things only about my candidate and I have no desire to learn about others.

I will vote for Edwards no matter what. I believe he is electable now despite not being to carry his home state in the last general election. He doesn't have a record to run on the past 3 years but believe me, he is electable. He showed up on picket lines and it doesn't have anything to do with getting endorsements from labor unions.

I would be willing to forgive you if you make an anti-Hillary post.


by dailyroad on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're going to take this the wrong way... (none / 0)

It was TECHNICALLY Tuesday, but it was really still Monday night to me.   Aside from a few arbiters who have to make up work on a client assignment (like myself) nobody was awake at 3:30 in the morning.  What difference would it have made to you if I had posted this right at 11:59PM last night instead of 12:01 AM or, as it happened, 3:30 AM?  I guess some people want to just find something to complain about.  

Ok, the obligatory anti-Hillary post:  I don't really care for Celine Dion, so the choice of her song was not a favorite of mine.  I am more of a rock guy.  Anything from AC/DC would have been better.  Or perhaps a cool ZZTop tune, George Thoroughgood, etc.    Just not that sappy Celine Dion song.  Ugh.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i wouldn't have thought about it... (none / 0)

if the edwards post wasn't below yours.  and you should pay homage to hughie, given his untimely death and living next door...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:37:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i wouldn't have thought about it... (none / 0)

Shock.  I have never seen him play, but knew about him.   Brooksville is just 20 miles from where I live.   Too bad that some of the good ones go way too early.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 05:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

green grass and high tides, i guess... (none / 0)

growing up in florida, before they got a record contract (which used to matter), they toured up and down the coasts of florida.  i'm still partial to the allman brothers myself, but i loved the henry paul version of the outlaws and then the henry paul band (including a fellow central brevard guitarist i grew up with, david fiester.

i don't know if it's that they died too young, or we are just getting old (you'll feel older when your kids are grown)...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 05:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: green grass and high tides, i guess... (none / 0)

Well, at 55 he went way below his time, so I don't feel quite that old.  Plus, my kids aren't grown yet (shudder) so they still keep me in my juice.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

true... (none / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 07:31:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're going to take this the wrong way... (none / 0)

I think this is a really weak complaint, but I uprated it so people would actually be able to see how weak it is.  Oh no, someone posted a couple hours after their "day" was over, big deal.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it wasn't that much of a complaint... (none / 0)

i thought the issue needed to be raised, and i didn't think anyone else would raise it.  in further clarification, george seemed to admit that he wasn't aware that an edwards post ended up before his.  i understood george's point (and anticipated it) but figured that no one would have thought about this otherwise.  it's all about expectations, and i don't think other people's expectations are too weak to be concerned about...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:33:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary and seniors (none / 0)

Exactly.

I intentionally did not come here yesterday because it was Hillary's Day. I expected to see an Edwards Diary today and I get this ?

I'll be back tomorrow.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

my Edwards post (none / 0)

is directly below this one on the front page--I posted it after midnight because I knew I wouldn't have time today.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:51:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thank you for following the guidelines... (1.00 / 2)

george had plenty of time, he just wasted it fighting with me...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thank you for following the guidelines... (none / 0)

LOL.   :-)


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:43:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not that there's anything wrong with that!!! (none / 0)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not that there's anything wrong with that!!! (none / 0)

Well, it is indeed a time waster due to the circular nature of the argument.  My wife knew I had a diary to do, so she was giving me looks all evening.   I guess the lesson is not to engage "bored now" on the day a diary is due, because he (of all people) will try to make hay of the fact that because of "discussing" with him my diary was a bit delayed.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:55:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary and seniors (none / 0)

voxpopuli,

I visited your diary and what an excellent post!

Thanks for taking the moral high ground by not making any disparaging remarks on others. Let's expose the attacks being made by Hillary and her supporters.

=============

The Disgusting Actions of Hillary Supporters Add to Hotlist

by Vox Populi, Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 06:30:40 AM PST

MyDD supporters of the most divisive, polarizing, and disliked Democrat running for President (that's Hillary `Walmart' Clinton), have recently been launching vile, personal attacks on Elizabeth Edwards


by dailyroad on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't Tuesday John Edwards Day??? (2.00 / 1)


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:19:48 AM EST

Re: Hillary and seniors (none / 0)

Excellent diary and right to the point. Hillary is leading because she honestly cares about real issues that effect the lives of real people. And it shows.


by DoIT on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:50:55 AM EST

Re: Hillary and seniors (none / 0)

Great diary.  You're getting better and better, George!

I'd like to see some polling data to see how Hillary does among seniors, and, in particular, how she does among senior men and senior women vis-a-vis men and women of different age groups.  I'm curious how much of her strength among seniors is due to the fact that there are more women than men at that age group and how much is due to the fact that she is simply more popular among the entire age group (I suspect it's primarily the latter and secondarily the former).


by markjay on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:52:14 AM EST

Texas data (none / 0)

Disclaimer - cutting a ~500 sample by age group AND gender gives some small subgroups with large margin of error.

That said, in my poll at the end of August, Clinton did about ten points better among the 60+ cohort than she did with the <40 and 40-59 cohorts. Among men, there was no difference between age groups, while among women, Clinton did 20 points better among the 60+ cohort than the two younger groups.

Clinton won each age group, though Obama was very close in the <40 cohort, certainly within the margin of error. Edwards was in second place among the 60+ cohort with almost twice Obama's support.

In general terms, my Florida poll from July has similar patterns.


Texas Economics
by IVR Polls on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:56:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Texas data (none / 0)

Thanks for the info, IVR P.


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and seniors (2.00 / 1)

Edwards worked hard on his bill to allow AMericans to reimport drugs from Canada.  That helps seniors.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:01:37 AM EST

Off topic (2.00 / 1)

Raised from nine months in Eugene, UO graduate along with both parents and most family, worked for the UO as well.

Went to the game with my best friend who works in the UO athletic department.  We had tickets in Sec 31 Row 4, in the heart of the student section, wearing our Oregon colors proudly.

Great time.


"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I do agree with you in part (none / 0)

in that most Hillary supporters and leaners I am finding are over 50.

I wonder whether her support among all voters over 50 is higher, or whether it's mainly among older Democrats that she does well.

A family friend in his 70s who likes Hillary a lot worries that too many people in his age group will be resistant to the idea of a woman president.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:53:32 AM EST

Re: social security (none / 0)

I'm on vacation and have very limited time on this computer but I had to respond to your comment on social security. I know a few days ago, I believe it was areyouready(?) and maybe another HRC supporter said that they disagreed with HRC's stance not to lower benefits (raise age limit) of social security. Now you express similiar sentiment that social security is insolvent and needs to be fixed.

Let me be clear. There is nothing structurally wrong with social security. Republicans overstated their case a few years ago that the current social security system needed to be replaced with privatization based on ideological reasons. They pointed to a report by the social security commission to make their claims that social security was running out of money. That is not the case. As Bill Richardson tried to explain (rather poorly) in an earlier debate, as long as the American economy grows at a decent rate, social security will be fine. I believe that the numbers in that social security report that the GOP often touts is predicated on GDP growth of 1-2%, which is a VERY low number. Social security isn't a problem. If anything, medicare has the most issues!! But that's another topic for another day.

Secondly, this diary mentions the government using the reserved funds from social security to fund "emergency spending" which is really general fund spending. I believe that there is a simple solution to this problem. Just take money from the general fund and put it back into social security. Yes, that's going to require higher taxes (preferably on upper income earners) but they've gotten a break on their taxes ever since the Greenspan commission in the 1980s came up with the grand compromise of raising social security taxes for low-income people while lowering the marginal rates for upper-income people.....

I just wanted to clarify that minor point in your diary b/c I'm afraid that the sentiment that there is something wrong with social security keeps popping up here at mydd.....

thanks for the nice write-up of HRC's support from the senior community....


by ademption on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:05:56 AM EST

Re: social security (none / 0)

I agree with you on both scores, ademption.  I probably should have put "need to fix SS" in quotes, because I meant to convey the same sentiments that you are voicing here, that indeed the "need to fix" SS has .  SS is only in need to be "fixed" because the funds have been raided by "emergency" needs.  Well, then the funds should be put right back where they belong, so we don't have this supposed "crisis."     It is in fact exactly this manufactured "crisis" that has me agreeing with Clinton 100% that the retirement age should be off the table, that no effort should be made to even consider retirement age for another uptick (to, say, 69 years of age) because the system is not in as bad a shape as the GOP purported it to be (to push their privatizing of SS idea,) nothing that rescinding Bush's tax cuts on the rich and perhaps a 1% further increase on incomes over $200,000 (earmarked specifically for SS) can't fix.  

Review the comments on that in this recent diary, which was specifically about the recent AARP convention but evolved into a discussion about SS (how to fix it, raising retirement age, etc.)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/8/11574 3/9915  

I think whoever ends up to be the nominee needs to explain to the voters that Social Security is not in dire straights, that indeed the system is sound and would remain solvent for a very long time were it not for the dipping into the fund that has been going on, which needs to be reversed and the funds need to be put back into the system.    


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: social security (none / 0)

I have to correct one thing, which is this myth that the Social Security surplus has been "raided" or that Congress has "dipped into it."

The reality is that the Social Security surplus has no more been "raided" than your savings account has been "raided."  We could, of course, leave the Social Security Trust Fund sitting as cash in a vault, but we'd be making 0% interest on it and inflation would actually be making it worth less.  By the same token, if the bank put your savings account in a box instead of loaning it out to other people, they wouldn't be able to pay you any interest.

The Social Security Trust Fund hasn't been squandered, it's been INVESTED - in the most solid investment on the planet, U.S. Treasury bills.  If you go out and invest $1000 in T-bills, what really happens is that the US government is borrowing your $1000 and giving you a piece of paper, and that piece of paper entitles you to recoup your loan down the road, with interest.  By the same token, when the government borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund - the so-called "raid" - they're taking out a loan that will be repaid, with interest.

When George Bush tries to demagogue the Social Security issue he claims that the Trust Fund consists of nothing more than "worthless IOUs."  But they're not worthless IOUs - they're Treasury Bills backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, and the only way they won't be repaid is if the entire system goes belly-up, in which case none of this would matter anyway.

If our government didn't borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund, they'd have to borrow the exact same amount of money from China or Japan or whoever, and we'd be paying the interest to those countries instead of to the Trust Fund that exists for the benefit of future generations.  It would be silly to leave that money sitting under a mattress, earning 0% interest, just so we could incur the exact same debt from a different source.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: social security (none / 0)

So they borrow from the SS trust fund to avoid getting into debt from other ends.  To me that is "raiding" a fund that should be in a lockbox instead.  I am not saying that it should just sit there.  Invest it wisely, but keep it in the SS coffers.  

The solution is to get the money for "whatever" elsewhere, not the SS surplus.  To that end we have to end the war in Iraq (the money pit,) rescind Bush's tax cuts, and strive for a balanced budget so we won't be tempted by that nice SS cash (which was really the cache for future SS shortfalls) to pay for other stuff that has nothing to do with SS.    


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: social security (none / 0)

You cannot both "invest it wisely" and "keep it in the SS coffers."  It's physically impossible.

As I described, the surplus is being invested in U.S. Treasury bills.  It's an incredibly safe investment.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: social security (none / 0)

But it is removed from the Social Security coffers, never to be seen again for the purpose it was initially slated for.  If you invest the "money that is laying around" in something that brings interest, then it stands to reason that that money that is inside the Social Security box (so to speak) grows and makes SS prosper even more.  It is not ok that that money disappears (to pay for wars, tax cuts, etc.) and then we are told that SS is running out of money and now we need to privatize.   SS was calculated to be solvent until 2052, after monies were "invested" the estimates are now closer to 2035.  The surplus should have stayed in the "lockbox" (Gore word) and we would still be looking at 45 years from now.    

I agree with you on the technicality of this, but that is why a balanced budget is necessary, so we don't have to "borrow" from Peter to pay Paul, and then handwring that Peter is running out of money.


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: social security (none / 0)

Right, but the problem is deficit spending, not the "raiding" per se.  It's important to note that there would have been no difference between the "lockbox" and the state of affairs we have right now, as far as the status of the Trust Fund.

Every financial advisor on the planet will tell you that U.S. Treasury bills are about the safest investment you can make.  Any man, woman or child would feel completely safe and secure knowing that their savings were invested in T-bills.  So then why should we worry when the Social Security Trust Fund is invested in T-bills?  Answer: we shouldn't.

If you think Republican policies are a threat to bankrupt the government, then it's important to elect someone with better policies.  But at the end of the day, T-bills are still considered an absolutely safe investment, meaning there's no reason to worry about the Trust Fund.  Worrying about the Republicans, though, that's another story.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: social security (none / 0)

I agree that the key is really deficit spending, which is another reason I support Hillary Clinton.  I trust she will be striving for budget balance, which will be the balm that SS needs to remain solvent.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you left out what I think is the biggest reason (none / 0)

some seniors are going for Hillary. I have heard this many times: "I want to see a woman president in my lifetime."

Personally, I would also like to see a woman president in my lifetime, but I would hope it would be one of our woman governors, like Kathleen Sebelius.

Many of these older women don't know if they will live until another election cycle in which a woman has a serious chance of getting elected. So they are all in for Hillary.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:08:33 AM EST

Re: (none / 0)

You are probably right to an extent.  I think it is a combination of factors here.

On a sidenote, I have to say that Edwards does have a pretty strong position amongst seniors in Iowa (not so in the rest of the country) which makes him a formidable opponent in the state.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Outstanding diary (none / 0)

Great diary George.  You've outdone your self with this one.

My partner is a gerontological social worker and she keeps me up to date with the issue set and with the Senator's hard work.

ademption is correct that the only insolvency crisis is the one peddled by GOPers.


"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:08:56 AM EST

Re: Outstanding diary (none / 0)

I agree on the bogus "crisis" part of SS.  That is why I think that Clinton's promises to seniors (to take raising retirement age off the table, to lower SS benefits) are the right path to take, not at all pandering.  We can find the money to make SS solvent for a very long time by simply putting back what we have raided in the past (should have never been taken in the first place) and rescind Bush's tax cuts.


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:25:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary and seniors (none / 0)

Nice post.


by BigBoyBlue on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:28:17 AM EST

Re: Tell the whole story georgep (2.00 / 0)

With all due respect georegp, this diary is typical of almost all of your pro HRC diaries and comments in that it is laced with partial truths, innuendo and spin.  More important, you and the Clinton campaign itself view and market the Clinton candidacy only through the narrow prism of the tactics of winning the 2008 nomination and not on how Senator Clinton would actually govern as President, how she would actually get things done as President and how she would enhance the long term prospects of the Democratic Party.  Other than "winning", what is the rationale for the Clinton candidacy?

You probably know but do not state in your diary, that on issues of retirement security, stem cell research, prescription drugs, Medicare reform and health care, that the policy objectives and voting record of the major Democratic Party candidates are virtually the same with only immaterial differences, if any.  For example, Senator Obama also has a 100% lifetime rating from the Alliance of Retired Americans.  The real issue is which candidate has the best leadership skills to craft and pass legislation impacting seniors (more on your definition of seniors below).

A specific case is Social Security.  We know that Senator Clinton is against privatizing Social Security and against raising the age limits.  So what specific plan would President Clinton introduce to fix Social Security?  There has been no leadership on this issue from Senator Clinton.  How is a divisive politician like Senator Clinton going to achieve the bipartisanship necessary to pass any meaningful Social Security reform?

You describe some of Senator Clinton's legislation and committee assignments affecting seniors and I give her proper credit for this engagement.  But are you aware that Senator Obama has also actively championed senior interests through the Save More for Retirement Act, worked to stop long term care insurance fraud and age discrimination in the work place, worked for pension security, worked for increased funding of affordable housing for low income seniors, worked to ensure that aging veterans receive their disability and health care benefits and worked to close the Medicare Part D prescription drug doughnut hole?

It is true that four months before anyone actually votes, that Senator Clinton has a national polling lead among older voters.  But this can largely be attributed to greater name recognition, familiarity with the candidate and a hazy nostalgia for the Clinton Administration.  

Seniors also know that Senator Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War, botched the 1993 attempt to reform health care, is the preferred candidate of establishment interests and lobbyists and is one of the most polarizing politicians in modern political history.  

Finally, a relatively minor point on your definition of seniors.  Under no analysis or measurement are voters between 55 and 64 considered seniors.  Also, most people between 65 and 75 do not like to be referred to as seniors although they traditionally are lumped into this category.

For disclosure purposes, I am doing volunteer work for the Obama campaign and these comments reflect my own personal opinion and not the opinion of the Obama campaign.  
 


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:20:45 AM EST

Re: Tell the whole story georgep (none / 0)

You claim he is using spin and half truths, yet you don't rebut anything he has to say as for as her support amongst the age group he addressed.  So what if he doesn't mention that Obama has a 100% ARA rating and that he championed the Save More for Retirement; this is not an Obama diary.  What exactly is untrue about the content.  Is she not on any of the committees he named, did she not cosponsor the Kinship Caregiver Bill, or support stem cell research.  Has she not promised to keep the retirement age at 65.  What does her IWR vote and 1993 healthcare reform has to do with her success amongst seniors.  Why don't you actually address the contents of the post, which is Hillary's popularity amongst older Americans.  You are certainly free to say he's full of sh*t, but at least have some facts to show why his position is not true.


by Kingstongirl on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:03:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell the whole story georgep (none / 0)

Instead of showing sensitivity here, would it not be more fruitful if you posted the legislative record for Obama, so the discussion would be moved forward?   There is a lot to win for all readers if you were to show Obama's legislative achievements in regards to seniors for a direct comparison.

Specifically, I mentioned Obama only twice in the entire diary in a rather mild aside:

"Obama, who has not much of a record of fighting for senior issues"

and the other time to point out that Obama decided to forego the televised AARP debate in Iowa.  

Thus I don't see the justification for your post.  I specifically reject your idea that these issues are entirely seen through the spectrum of winning in 08 and now how "she would govern."   I think that the case for how Clinton would govern on these issues (here social security and senior concerns) is quite evident in this diary.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:19:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell the whole story georgep (none / 0)

now how "she would govern" should have been    not how "she would govern."


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:20:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary and seniors (none / 0)

Awesome post georgep.


by lonnette33 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:19:53 AM EST

You're linked from AARP blog. (2.00 / 1)

This was a nicely presented diary from a candidate-suppoter. Nice job, georgep.

So you know, I found this from a link at the brand new AARP blog.


by iddybud on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:16:19 PM EST

What is the senior bump at the margins? (none / 0)

Any thoughts on how to tease out the marginal (as in unique) increase in senior support Senator Clinton garners in the general?

Let's assume she is more popular with seniors than the other Dems.  Obviously this helps her in primaries, all the more so given seniors' rates of voting in primaries.  This very solid diary also proves Clinton's attention to senior issues and the likelihood of solid governance on senior issues.

But does it demonstrate that in the general she garners more votes from seniors than would Obama or Edwards?  If so, where and how?  

Because otherwise it is essentially like saying Clinton has more AA support than Edwards.  That matters - a lot - in the primary in some states.  But how much does it matter in the general, given justified AA support for Dem presidential candidates?  I mean, I am sure Clinton is more popular than Kerry with AA, but they (rightly in my view) voted in the same rates essentially for Kerry as for Gore as for Bill Clinton twice.

What is the marginal gain in the general?

This is a general problem with a lot of the Clinton is more popular with group X arguments (I understand these give her a huge leg up in the primary, but for those who cast primary votes with an eye on the general, my argument/question might have some resonance).

This is why I am really interested in good data about new single women or Hispanic voters that only Clinton brings to the table in the general.  Because these are unique voters to weigh against those other candidates may be able to attract.  For instance (hypothetically) Obama might increase AA turnout, Edwards might take some rural voters away from GOPers, and so on.

I will vote for Senator Clinton in the general if she is the nominee, but I will never vote in the primary for some candidate merely because they are the front-runner in the primary.  For me its, first, about the issues, and second about electability in the general and coat-tails.


"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:47:10 PM EST

Re: What is the senior bump at the margins? (none / 0)

Absolutely. I applaud that you vote on issues first and foremost, as it should be.  Electability is a wrinkled argument, and we saw how that worked out in 2004 (the "electable" candidate was swiftboated exactly with the strength he was perceived to have.)  

I don't think extremely ard data exists on how much better Clinton would do amongst seniors, although we have data that breaks down general election head-to-heads (as far as they are somewhat reliable numbers for the here and now) by age group.  From what I have seen from the few surveys that break this down by age, Clinton does better against GOP comers than other Democrats amongst that age group, disproportionally so.  I will dig to get the surveys where I have seen the age groups broken down as for GE surveys and post them later tonight.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.