Workin’ to 72

Making Bill Pascoe’s faux outrage even worse, Oberweis talked about wanting to privatize social security during the Trib forum.

“In return for being able to direct one quarter of the total payments into the special account, the individual would be giving up…the first, approximately six years of social security payments. It would move him from, say, 66 retirement to age 72 retirement.”

How does Pascoe refer to this privatization plan:

“To begin: the Foster ad falsely claims that Jim ’supported Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security, gambling your retirement in the stock market.’ Bill Foster knows this isn’t true, because he sat next to Jim Oberweis yesterday in the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board endorsement session and heard Jim talk about his plan to strengthen Social Security, to make sure it’s still there 30 years from now.

Err…Oberweis has what is called a privatization plan–as CATO originally called it and, not only that, he wants to raise the age of retirement to 72!

Today’s Tosser: Bill Pascoe, What’s Most Amusing About Bill Pascoe’s Fine Whine

Are his comments about how to run a campaign in 2004:

First, understand why your opponent has problems with significant elements of his base, and drive wedges where you can, to the maximum extent possible; second, recognize that it is not your campaign’s job to tell the objective truth, it’s your campaign’s job to tell the version of the truth that puts your opponent in the worst light possible (it’s his campaign’s job, after all, to do the same to you); third, don’t get suckered into the trap of only talking about issues the media says are important – instead, choose the issue matrix over which you want to wage war, and stick to it no matter what; and fourth, if need be, if you can’t make a legitimate argument against your opponent on a key issue, use your opponent’s party’s position on the issue as the battleground, and wrap it around his neck. Make him pay for the sins of his party. Guilt by association still works, so don’t be shy in exploiting it.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Oh wait, the claims about Oberweis are all true…

3 Years Before Bush Ever Had a Plan for Social Security?

Pascoe below makes the claim:

“The on-screen sources listed for Mr. Foster’s ridiculous allegation are the Daily Herald of Feb. 17, 2002, and Jeff Berkowitz’s ‘Public Affairs’ show of Dec. 7, 2007. NOWHERE in the contents of EITHER source is there ANY indication that Jim Oberweis ‘supported Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security’ — in fact, that would have been quite impossible, given that the Bush Administration DIDN’T EVEN OFFER A PLAN TO ADDRESS SOCIAL SECURITY’S LONG-TERM STABILITY UNTIL 2005, THREE YEARS AFTER THE FIRST SO-CALLED ‘SOURCE’ CITED!!!

Let’s start with when did Bush offer a plan to address Social Security Long-Term Stability:


Social Security has emerged as a critical issue in this year’s presidential campaign, but neither candidate seems prepared to address the system’s long-term financial problems. Instead, Gov. George W. Bush wants to let individuals invest a small part of their Social Security contributions in the stock market, where he thinks they will earn a better return, and Vice President Al Gore proposes to keep the system largely intact with an infusion of general tax revenues. Neither proposal would really stabilize the system in the long run. In truth, though Social Security is projected to become bankrupt in four decades, the system is not all that far out of kilter. It would not be hard for bold politicians to devise a fix.

Social Security may well be, as Governor Bush has said, “the single most successful government program in American history.” It was created in 1935, during the depths of the depression, to provide a guaranteed income to retired workers for as long as they live. Unlike private pension plans, Social Security benefits keep pace with inflation and, unlike 401(k)’s and other popular private plans, Social Security benefits do not fluctuate with stock and bond markets. Social Security provides the majority of income for most retirees and all the income for about a fifth of the elderly.

From its inception, the system has taken in payroll taxes from the working generation and turned almost all of them over to retirees. At the core of Social Security are the notions of social insurance — everyone participates in a common plan — and redistribution — the program tilts in favor of low-paid workers. The benefits for low-paid workers are about 80 percent of their average lifetime earnings, while benefits for high-paid workers are about 30 percent of average earnings. The progressive formula has cut the poverty rate among the elderly by two-thirds, reducing their poverty to below that of the general population. That is a remarkable triumph.

The question before voters is whether a program born out of depression — when poverty was rampant, few married women worked for pay and no one had 401(k)’s or I.R.A.’s to provide for retirement — needs to be revamped.

One reason for thinking so is the projected bankruptcy — a sobering but manageable situation. The system will run surpluses for the next 15 years, building a large reserve. But in 2010, the first wave of the baby boomers — the nearly 80 million people born between 1946 and 1964 — will begin to retire and collect retirement checks. The number of people in the work force for every retiree will fall from about five today to about three in only 30 years or so. That, and the fact that people are living longer, will put a strain on workers to support the retirement needs of the elderly. The system will begin to run deficits around 2015. By 2037, the trust fund is expected to be empty.

But for all the talk of bankruptcy, the system is not facing irreparable financial crisis. Even after 2037, payroll taxes will cover about 70 percent of promised benefits. Deficits over the next 75 years, the planning horizon for the program, will equal less than 2 percent of total payrolls — hardly a catastrophic shortfall. If the economy were to grow only slightly faster than the actuaries at the Social Security Administration now project, the deficit would disappear.

One proposed remedy for financial imbalance is partial privatization, the approach favored by Governor Bush. Under current law, workers and employers pay a 12.4 percent payroll tax that goes into a public trust fund. Under partial privatization, workers could divert, say, two percentage points of that tax to private accounts that the worker could then invest in stocks and bonds. Workers would collect less money from the trust fund when they retired, alleviating financial strain on the system. But they would expect to more than make up for the loss by drawing from their private accounts.

Mr. Bush’s sketchy proposal fails to answer where he would find the money to pay retirees as payroll taxes were diverted into private accounts. But there are other fundamental problems with the proposal as well.

New York Times, May 29, 2000

Hmmmmm….Pascoe has some issue with dates apparently.

But more interesting is there is a point here.  Just it makes Oberweis look worse:

Specifically, Oberweis believes workers should be allowed to invest half of the current 6.2 percent tax in a personal account. Cox supports a lower percentage but would not specify a percentage. Durkin also has not offered details about what kind of personal savings account plan he would support.

Chicago Daily Herald, February 17, 2002

Oberweis actually would have had larger private accounts than Bush at the time in 2002.

Perhaps Bill Pascoe should know something about his own candidate?

Kooks Away….Bill Pascoe Writes Another Manifesto

Pascoe’s most recent work of ‘art’

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Bill Pascoe
FEBRUARY 28, 2008

FOSTER, EXPOSED AS A TAX-HIKER, MAKES STUFF UP

(BATAVIA, February 28) — Oberweis for Congress spokesman Bill Pascoe today criticized liberal Democrat Bill Foster for airing a television advertisement made up of half-truths, distortions, and outright lies.

“Bill Foster’s latest television advertisement should come with a parental warning notice — ‘Smear campaign ahead,'” said Pascoe. “But that shouldn’t be surprising — if I’d been caught planning to raise taxes by $3,914 per taxpayer, I’d probably have to consider making stuff up, too. The choice for voters couldn’t be clearer: Bill Foster wants to hike taxes and spend more on failed big-government programs, while Jim Oberweis wants to cut taxes and shrink government so families can keep more of their own money.

“Of the three major claims made in Mr. Foster’s advertisement, two of them are demonstrably false, and the remaining claim is deliberately misinterpreted to create an impression at odds with reality. Bill Foster — whose own mudslinging began two days into the special election (as noted by the Beacon News) — should be ashamed.

“To begin: the Foster ad falsely claims that Jim ‘supported Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security, gambling your retirement in the stock market.’ Bill Foster knows this isn’t true, because he sat next to Jim Oberweis yesterday in the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board endorsement session and heard Jim talk about his plan to strengthen Social Security, to make sure it’s still there 30 years from now. (Interestingly, Mr. Foster himself suggested he wasn’t at all concerned about Social Security’s impending troubles, indicating it ‘wouldn’t be [his] first priority,’ and suggesting that a 30 percent cut in benefits to future retirees would be all right with him.)

“The on-screen sources listed for Mr. Foster’s ridiculous allegation are the Daily Herald of Feb. 17, 2002, and Jeff Berkowitz’s ‘Public Affairs’ show of Dec. 7, 2007. NOWHERE in the contents of EITHER source is there ANY indication that Jim Oberweis ‘supported Bush’s scheme to privatize Social Security’ — in fact, that would have been quite impossible, given that the Bush Administration DIDN’T EVEN OFFER A PLAN TO ADDRESS SOCIAL SECURITY’S LONG-TERM STABILITY UNTIL 2005, THREE YEARS AFTER THE FIRST SO-CALLED ‘SOURCE’ CITED!!!

“The Foster ad continues its calumny with this whopper: ‘Oberweis thinks we should end employer provided health insurance.’ That’s patently false, and Bill Foster knows it — he’s heard Jim say that to his face in editorial board meetings that have taken place over the last 48 hours. The two companies that bear Jim’s name — Oberweis Asset Management and Oberweis Dairy — both pay for health insurance for their full-time employees, and Jim has made clear he supports employer-provided health care.

“The Chicago Tribune even acknowledged that it had inadvertently mischaracterized Jim’s position on this issue, and issued a clarification that reads, ‘A story in the Feb. 23 West edition of the Metro section mischaracterized 14th Congressional District Republican candidate Jim Oberweis’ position on health care. While Oberweis advocates replacing the current employer-based health-care system with tax incentives that encourage people to buy their own insurance polices, he did not say the system should be eliminated.’ (See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-claris_2-27feb27,0,7738809.story)

“Jim Oberweis believes we should offer Americans MORE choices in health care, not fewer. And he believes we should not force Americans to give up control over their own doctors and their own treatment by forcing them into a one-size-fits-all ‘universal’ health care scheme that cost hundreds of billions of dollars, as Bill Foster proposes.

“Further, the Foster ad declares, ‘Oberweis said ten more years in Iraq is the right approach.’ Actually, what Jim Oberweis said was that General Petraeus’s ‘Surge’ strategy is working, that we should continue to withdraw our troops gradually, as Iraqis take more responsibility, and we may have to leave a residual force in Iraq for up to ten years.

“Finally: Has anyone noticed that the quote the Foster campaign constantly uses — ‘I’ve supported the President on almost everything’ — comes from a newspaper article that’s more than FOUR YEARS OLD? That’s more than half the length of time George Bush has been in the White House! Has anyone noticed that the very title of the article cited — ‘GOP Senate rivals back away from Bush’ — has been deliberately hidden by Mr. Foster? Has Mr. Foster not read any newspapers between January 2004 and today? Has he not been made aware of the many instances in which Jim Oberweis has publicly disagreed with the President since then — particularly, for example, on the twin issues of immigration reform and management of the Iraq war?

“Liberal Democrat Bill Foster has been exposed as a man who wants to raise taxes on married couples, on families with children, on small businessmen and farmers, even on capital gains and dividends — this, as the economy is going into a rough spot. Liberal Democrat Bill Foster has been exposed as a man who wants to allow employers to hire illegal immigrants, as long as they’re willing to pay an ‘amnesty tax.’ Liberal Democrat Bill Foster has now been exposed as a man willing to force another $440 billion, big-government health care program down the throats of the American public. It’s no wonder he’s reaching for the standard Democrat playbook — distort, misinterpret, or falsify, whatever it takes — because his only alternative is to give up.”

— 30 —

Paid for by Oberweis for Congress

Never mind that most of this is just wrong–this is one of the worst press releases ever and it’s  because Bill Pascoe has to prove he’s right regardless of what helps his candidate the most.

Already, I exposed above that Oberweis’ own site supports eliminating employer provided health insurance.  More in the next few posts.