Before the year ends, the president’s deficit commission will bring forth a plan for cutting the deficit. While commission co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles have announced that everything that costs the government money is on the table—wars, hunger programs, agricultural price supports, entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and thousands of other programs—only Social Security has risen to the top. That’s largely because of the public relations machine created by billionaire investment banker Peter G. Peterson and a mainstream news media that is just beginning to pay attention to Social Security. (Peterson is a CJR funder.) If anything, Peterson’s message has gotten through. A Gallup poll found that more than half of current retirees expect their benefits to be cut, and sixty percent of all Americans believe that Social Security won’t be able to pay benefits when they stop working.
The stories and columns that have appeared border on the wonkish and elliptical, and have failed to tell ordinary Americans what’s at stake. What does all this talk mean for them? CJR went to the metropolitan area of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, to find out. This is the third of a series of posts that discuss how possible changes in Social Security will affect the area’s residents. The entire series is archived here.
Deficit commission co-chair Alan Simpson, who got himself into hot water last week with his intemperate e-mail to the executive director of the Older Women’s League, is fond of saying that the changes he has in mind for Social Security won’t hurt people like Ronald Eaker “one whiff.” Eaker, who turns sixty-three this month, won’t be bothered by, say, lifting the retirement age for full benefits to seventy. But Eaker’s health and financial circumstances are not unlike those of millions of others in the next decade or two who will be affected by an increase in the retirement age. The dilemma Eaker currently faces is whether to take a reduced Social Security benefit now or wait until he is sixty-six to collect the full amount, $1404 per month.
“A person who has had three heart attacks and a defibrillator in his chest is thinking how many days I have left, not years,” Eaker says. “If the age was seventy, I would have to keep working. It’s basically saying you work until you die.” He said his father was a crane operator in a factory who was on Social Security disability for ten years before he died at age sixty-nine; his mother, who is still living, he said, barely made it to sixty-five. “She worked in a munitions factory and would have never made it to seventy on the job.”
For him, waiting until age sixty-six is a long stretch, but at the moment he says he is going to do it. “I keep telling myself, I’m okay right now. I’m in a job I like. But it depends on me not getting sick or my wife’s job (at an assisted living facility) not going away or she gets fired,” he told me. It also provides health insurance.
Eaker works as the on-site manager for a self-service storage company, earning about $34,000 a year. He has been there for six and a half years, managing 500 units. He says it is the least stressful job he has ever had. For nineteen years, Eaker was a United Methodist pastor. He left the ministry, though, after a divorce from his first wife. “When you become a single pastor, people want to know if you’re gay,” Eaker said. So he became a nursing home administrator—not the world’s easiest job. “I wanted to improve things for the elderly, but instead I spent eight years fighting the system of owners wanting a profit and a staff wanting a paycheck. If I wanted to make a difference, this was my niche. I had challenged myself to take a poor public aid facility that was in fairly deep trouble.”
- 1
- 2
i would enjoy a discussion of the american political and journalistic tradition of associating the "heartland" with "real people" and the "heartland" with the prarie states
what makes new york, california, maine, oregon, arizona, florida, pennsylvania, delaware, and others not part of the "heartland" and not "real people"
seems to me that what passes as the "heartland" is predominantly rural and the "real people" who live there are few in number compared to those who live outside the "heartland"
#1 Posted by jamzo, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 11:52 AM
All transfer payments benefit someone. And no one has ever denied that such payments encourage dependency. I'd like CJR to show some courage by sending Trudy out to interview a 'real' retiree who doesn't need Social Security but still collects, so that the entire picture of the debate is covered.
I forget, is this a 'journalism review' or a political advocacy site? This story, which features original reporting in the service of a pre-cooked political position, does not even pretend to be about 'journalism'.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 12:36 PM
She did, two weeks ago: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/social_security_in_the_heartland_lonnie_judy.php
#3 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 01:15 PM
Jamzo,
I once heard a journalist say that “news is what happens to your editor’s friends”. Considering that nearly all media outlets of any note tend to congregate in large urban and mostly coastal areas (where the editors and their friends live) it tends to have this dominant perspective.
While I certainly don’t agree with much of Lieberman’s writings on entitlements, I certain do applaud her with attempting to step out of this bubble.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 01:32 PM
Mark,
You are a piece of work, but with a serious bent to all that you perceive. The CJR Mission Statement, FYI:
Columbia Journalism Review’s mission is to encourage and stimulate excellence in journalism in the service of a free society. It is both a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms, from newspapers to magazines to radio, television, and the Web. Founded in 1961 under the auspices of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, CJR examines day-to-day press performance as well as the forces that affect that performance. The magazine is published six times a year, and offers a deliberative mix of reporting, analysis, criticism, and commentary. CJR.org, our Web site, delivers real-time criticism and reporting, giving CJR a vital presence in the ongoing conversation about the media. Both online and in print, Columbia Journalism Review is in conversation with a community of people who share a commitment to high journalistic standards in the U.S. and the world.
That leaves plaenty of room for the good work that CJR does. Some times good journalism requires a proding of the MSM. Maybe you prefer the Fox News phenomenon of making up the news as they go along, or completely ignoring the facts of a story in deference to an ideological bent of mind, like your own.
And just how many American workers are still lucky enough to have a defined pension plan? Public plans have been steadily decreasing the value of their plans, and are continuing to do so as we speak. And private plans defined pensions have been disappearing steadily since the birth of the 401K (better known as YoYo planning; they go up and they go down). A recent articel from The Street:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10781834/dow-companies-are-holdouts-on-pension-plans.html
"Companies are increasingly finding pension plans too expensive, too complicated and too risky when compared with 401(k) plans. Dow-member companies dominate the list of those that offer conventional pensions. A survey by Towers Watson, the global consulting firm, found that only 17% of Fortune 100 companies still offer a direct-benefit plan, down from 67% in 1998. Those that offer direct-contribution plans, such as 401(k)'s, total 58%, up from 10%. Despite the decline, many of the country's best-known companies still offer pensions to at least some employees."
#5 Posted by Jack, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 02:01 PM
I scanned Jack's message with pulse racing, waiting, waiting . . . and there it was - I won the bet with myself - the utterly irrelevant but apparently mandatory reference to Fox News! Whew! I worried that Jack would trick me and manage to get through a long dissertation without mentioning the news channel whose greatest success appears to be in its mission statement of driving a certain small but vocal element of our political-media echo chamber out of its mind! Though, to give Jack his due, there were no additional references to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh.
I have questions, and apparently Jack has answers, so the question of the day is: what exactly is a 401(k) plan if it is not a private pension plan? Just an update old plans which were financed in-house - the sort of thing that bankrupted General Motors - but still a private pension plan under private auspices, since 401 (k) type plans are heavily invested in securities. The point is the degree to which private money takes care of retirees vs. public money. We actually have a form of pension-fund socialism in this country, wherein 'workers' have controlling interests in the big companies, which is a separate, but interesting development. I don't think Social Security, which was established in the older-pension plan days to which Jack refers, anticipated any such thing happening.
The press handout at the beginning of Jack's message makes me curious. Is 'Jack' a CJR staffer posting under a different name? Trudy Lieberman herself, perhaps?
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 05:06 PM
No Mark, that's a verbvatim copy of CJR's Mission Statement which I thought it best to provide you with as it appears that you have your own unique idea of what purpose CJR serves.
Social Security is not public money. The revenue stream is from individual workers and their employers that provides the current benefits to former workers who paid into the same system inorder to provide the revenue to pay the beneficiaries at that earlier time. It is not benefits stemming from some charitable fund. I suspect that you know that as well as I do. I suspect, and your persistence to try to characterize it otherwise supports my suspiscion, that your intention is only to confuse others about this issue.
Currently there are defined benefits plans and defined contributions plans. The only similarity is that some amount of money is "defined" in each plan, but only in the benefits plan is there a statement of actual benefits that will be available to the retiree. In the defined contributions plan, like a 401K plan, only the money taken from a worker's paycheck is assured. What will be left for retirement after a work life is subject to market variability, and very variable the market has been. Talk to some who retired in 2008 and 2009 on such defined contribution plans and see how much less they have than they thought that they would. Their brokers told them so and people like Mark Richard helped to spread that gospel. When a worker invests his or her retirement savings in the private investment market he can end up on the short end of the stick. Those who have are certainly happy to have what benefits their Social Security contributions over the years have earned them. That's their only guaranteed income.
#7 Posted by Jack, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 06:09 PM
CJR is not living up to its mission statement, which is to be a watchdog of the press, not a watchdog of public figures, or to become itself part of that mission.
Social Security is public money. The general fund borrowed from it in fat years, and will borrow from the general fund when it starts running shortfalls.
You confirm my point that it is a pay-as-you-go system. Not a controversial assertion. It isn't so much that we disagree on the 'facts' per se. It's that you think Social Security is fine as it is, and I don't.
The market has been variable, but over a lifetiime seems to out-perform the returns on Social Security - which is why FICA, whose withholding started at 1% of income back in the day, has now had to be ratcheted up to almost 800% higher by percentage of income.
If Social Security is fine and dandy, why do public workers resist having their PERS fund rolled into it? And I'd add that despite 'market variability', the movement is still toward 401-K accounts, rather than increased Social Security taxes, that consumers have moved. Our politicians have also exempted themselves from Social Security contributions. I wonder why. It might be that for most people - not all, nothing is 'all' - their money might be better invested elsewhere. Social Security is a valuable political tool every couple of years for the Democratic Party to use - create a dependent constituency, then pose as its savior. In this case, FDR's genius was to make everyone dependent. That's the political attraction of those 'universal' programs. Kids today weren't around when Social Security was enacted, but they have had the obligations to present retirees handed to them. And you still don't disagree that Social Security is a brutally regressive tax.
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 08:31 PM
What I want to know is who the hell is going to hire/keep a 65-70 year old employee??
#9 Posted by TotallyDaft, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 09:21 PM
To TotallyDaft, the unemployment rate is highest among young people, 18-25, so you might re-direct your question. This is part of the problem with Social Security.
#10 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 12:24 PM
With so much being said about social security, I find it interesting that no one is talking about social security disability. It has been a struggle for me to obtain my disability, as a 57 year old male. It's frustrating to keep getting denied by the government.
#11 Posted by Jack Simpson, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 10:29 AM