Greenwald and Sanders try to defend Social Security, slam Charles and David Koch


Are the free market critics of Social Security a shadowy “echo chamber” seeking to end the system for the benefit of the rich, or sounding a fact-based alarm that government and its supporters dispute and don’t want you to hear?

According to a short video by Robert Greenwald, it’s the first choice. But examination of the claims made will lead us to the opposite conclusion, and you’ll wonder why Greenwald has any credibility.

The video features U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist. He describes Social Security as a federal program that has been “enormously successful,” so right away we need to take issue with Sanders. Social Security a success? If creating a system where millions of people are dependent on government for their retirement income is a successful program, the government has done just that. What has been the result? As George Reisman recently wrote: “Not surprisingly, in the conviction that the government was now providing for people’s old age, the rate of saving in the United States has declined precipitously over the years, falling all the way to zero in some years.”

We’ve transitioned from savers to government dependents. For a socialist like Sanders, that may very well have been his goal. He certainly can’t be unhappy with the results.

Right after this, the video shows images and names of think tank organizations that are funded in part by Charles Koch and/or David Koch, with Sanders claiming these organizations spread “disinformation” about Social Security. The information generated by these think tanks is truthful, however, and an important antidote to a huge whopper of a lie Sanders will spread later on.

(At this point one might be tempted to ask: What is the interest of the Charles and David Koch in reforming Social Security? John Hinderaker in his Powerline article A Less Than Magnificent Obsession answers this question when he writes: “… does it make any difference to the Kochs’ company, Koch Industries, whether the retirement age is 65 or 68? I can’t imagine why it would. Likewise, the brothers themselves are both billionaires. Whether Social Security is or is not reformed makes zero difference to them personally.” I would say, however, that Charles and David Koch have long advocated for liberty and economic freedom for everyone, and since Social Security is contrary to that, this could explain their interest.)

A huge focus of the video is raising the retirement age. It’s repeated over and over — so as to scare viewers. As John Hinderaker notes at Powerline, it’s been done before: “proposals to raise the age of Social Security eligibility have been a bipartisan staple of reform proposals for decades. … The bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission, which was appointed by President Obama, recommended increasing the age of eligibility.”

It’s important to note that the Social Security retirement age is simply the age at which one can begin receiving benefits. Contrary to the claims of Sanders in this video, it doesn’t mean that everyone has to keep working until that age. Over the course of a working career, isn’t it possible for someone to save enough to cover the several years between when they decide to quit working and when they’re eligible for Social Security? Or will we let the government — people like Sanders — tell us how long we must work?

Sanders also says that older people need to retire and get out of the workforce to make way for younger workers to take their jobs. This is an example of the fallacy — followed by nearly all on the political Left, it seems — of believing that the economy is a fixed size, and that one person can have income only if someone else gives up theirs.

Perhaps the most dangerous lie of Sanders is his claim that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus available to pay future benefits. He’s referring to the Social Security trust fund. Here, Sanders is correct one on level: The system has collected that much more than it has needed to pay benefits, forming the balance referred to in the trust fund. That money has been lent to other federal government agencies, and they spent it all. So while Federal Agency X may owe the trust fund $50 billion, the only way that agency can repay the trust fund is by borrowing or increasing taxes. (Less spending might be another way, but that’s a difficult goal, and we’d be taxed the same for a lower level of services — a tax increase by another name.) See Social Security trust fund: a problem in disguise.

Sanders dismisses private retirement accounts as risky and dangerous: “You may lose all your retirement savings when you get old.” While true, any reasonable investment strategy designed for the long term has little chance of that happening. Unless, of course, one gets greedy and invests everything in a company like Enron — greed of that type being something Sanders rails against.

Saving on one’s own, however, isn’t what leftists like Bernie Sanders have in mind. Far better for him, Democrats, and big-government Republicans that people remain dependent on government for their retirement security. Once people save and gain some wealth of their own, they find that they can thrive very nicely without a nanny state government. They find themselves wishing they could have saved more throughout their working lives, rather than making forced contributions to a government retirement plan that’s now broke. Even if not broke, most people would be in a much better position if they could have kept their own and their employers’ payroll tax contributions for their own investment.

Finally, Sanders makes a major point of “huge campaign contributions” made to advance the interests of Charles and David Koch. Hinderaker chases down some of the actual numbers, and finds that contributions from Koch Industries PAC are sometimes less than what a single labor union has contributed.

In the end, I’m sure that Sanders said something that’s true in this video. But I can’t bear to watch it again to try and spot it.

Here’s my video response:


3 responses to “Greenwald and Sanders try to defend Social Security, slam Charles and David Koch”

  1. Joseph

    Good post, Bob.

  2. Dana

    Bob, It always amazes me that the Loch Brothers are slammed. I am familiar with the Koch brothers, since my Dad knew their Dad Fred Koch well. I was always proud of the fact I got to meet Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and Barry Goldwater, eat in the Senate Dining room when I was 3 1/2. I remember when Sen. Dirkson would call my Dad. I was proud to know these ppl. Anyone who finds this out about me hates me for it. Without cause. I was called crazy for saying i knew these ppl. A Forest Gump. The Koch Brothers know I’m not lying. Have been to Wichita at Charles Koch’s office. I was born in Wichita, Kansas. I am just a son. I am very disappointed what i see going on in Politics. I understand about the BLM the subsidies and the like. I made my money the hard way. No one did me any favors. No one handed me anything. Yet to have known some the greatest ppl who have walked the face of the Earth I wonder what God wants from me. One person can make a difference. Wait for it. God is Real. God Bless America.

  3. Ictator

    The only way to save social security in its current form is to raise the retirement age or dramatically raise the revenue/taxes going into it.

    Or you could cut current benefits….nah, never going to happen except from the Federal Reserve’s printing press inflationary policies.

    If retiring at 62 was eliminated, and receiving full benefits under social security was raised to age 68 or 69 you would extend the life of social security dramatically. The Obamanation’s hideous economic policies are dramatically worsening both social security as well as medicare’s tax revenues.

    When social security was enacted in the 1930’s the average age that people died was in their early 60s and well below the 65 level. Demographics and technology have changed but social security as a politically controlled and dominated entity has remained a political club for statists to bash anyone with the fortitude to call for reform. Government operation of pension funds is about as incompetent as the Teamster Union pension funds.

    401k plans for everyone, especially young people, and provide a transition form like Rep. Ryan’s age 55 on Medicare proposal to folks who are middle aged. Those that are still working need a transition mechanism to help them prepare for a sensible retirement.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.