Protesters Fan Out to Save Social Security-- But the Chamber's Still Opposed

Events are taking place across the country this week in order to push back on Republican efforts to privatize Social Security-- an idea also championed, of course, by the U.S. Chamber. Notably, the Chamber has opposed Social Security from its inception (which the Chamber opposed) straight through to the present day, supporting nearly every effort for privatization along the way.  Chamber President Tom Donohue himself has said that any social security reform “must” include privatization, despite the fact that it's neither politically popular (polling consistently shows Americans opposed to privatization) or economically wise (in 2009, the editor of Fortune magazine explained how privatizing social security would have made the financial meltdown of 2008 even “worse"). But hey, the Wall Street titans seem to like the idea.

Here’s some more information on the Chamber’s anti-social security agenda:

THE CHAMBER OPPOSED THE CREATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

U.S. Chamber Opposed the 1935 Social Security Act. According to an official history of Social Security, “In 1935, while there were long debate and votes on many amendments, the Congress passed the Social Security Act by an overwhelming majority.  In the House, the vote was 372 yeas, 33 nays and 25 not voting.  The vote in the Senate was equally positive, with 77 yeas, 6 nays and 12 not voting.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Act into law on August 14, 1935.  Despite the strong support, there was vocal opposition to the Act, both in the Congress and externally.  The minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee said it would impose a crushing burden upon industry and upon labor.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposed the bill.” [SSA History: History of SSA 1993-2000]

THE CHAMBER SUPPORTS CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY

The U.S. Chamber “Commend[ed]” The Bowles-Simpson Plan To Cut Social Security And Medicare. Following the release of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC’s) deficit reduction report, the U.S. Chamber issued praise: “We commend the BPC’s valuable contribution to the deficit reduction debate and thank co-chairs Senator Pete Domenici and Director Alice Rivlin—and members of the Deficit Reduction Task Force—for their leadership. The report, along with the recommendations made by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson of the President’s Deficit Commission, is a powerful reminder of three things: the tremendous harm we are inflicting on our economy by failing to get the deficit under control; the unconscionable burden we are passing on to future generations; and that practical solutions can be found when public leaders work together on a bipartisan basis and with the long-term interests of the country in mind.” [U.S. Chamber, 11/17/10]

Bowles-Simpon “Would Cut Benefits For The Vast Majority Of Social Security Recipients” And Increase Medicare And Medicaid Premiums. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: “It would cut benefits for the vast majority of Social Security recipients, weaken the link between a recipient’s benefits and past earnings (which could undermine public support for the program), and, despite the claims of the co-chairs, fail to protect most low-income workers from benefit cuts.  … Bowles-Simpson’s cuts in Medicaid and Medicare would pose further problems for millions of Social Security beneficiaries.  They call for increasing the amounts that elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries must pay for health care services (presumably through higher co-payments) under both Medicare and the Medigap policies that supplement Medicare coverage while giving them better protection against catastrophic expenses.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/17/11]

THE CHAMBER SUPPORTS PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

U.S. Chamber President: Any Social Security Reform “Must” Include Privatization. In June 2005, Tom Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, co-wrote an op-ed that stated, “any Social Security reform must meet four core principles,” including “[g]iving younger workers the option of investing part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts.” In January 2005, Donohue “said a Social Security overhaul is ‘doable’ this year and said the Chamber believes ‘individual investment accounts must be an important component of reform.” [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 6/7/05; CongressDaily, 1/5/05]

U.S. Chamber Website “Gives Credit” to President George Bush’s Plan to Partially Privatize Social Security that Later Failed. A webpage on the U.S. Chamber’s website states “Give credit to President Bush for challenging the status quo and committing to tackling the thorny issue of Social Security reform.” The Chamber outlined the President’s positions on the issue including “Voluntary Private Accounts for the younger generation, to offer the opportunity to earn higher benefits than the current system can afford, and to build a "nest egg" that they own.”  Bush’s push to reform social security was widely defeated in 2005, as Jacob Weisberg of Slate explained, “George W. Bush's plan to remake the Social Security system is kaput. This is not a value judgment. It's a statement of political fact.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, accessed 4/25/11; Slate, 3/31/05]

U.S. Chamber Said “Best Way” To Reform Social Security was with “Personal Account Proponent.” A webpage on the U.S. Chamber’s website states the “problems” with social security and “solutions” for reforming it. The Chamber states that social security is an “‘unfunded’ income transfer scheme” and that without reform “the only way to address this problem is to either cut Social Security benefits or raise payroll taxes.” Offering solutions, the Chamber claims “the best way” to “permanently strengthen social security” is “with a personal account component as President Bush and others have proposed.” [U.S. Chamber Website, Accessed 4/25/11]