News Release

State Of The Union 2006: By The Numbers

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0500

ON INCOMES:
--Inflation-adjusted average CEO pay at depth of recession in 2002: $7,773,000
--Average CEO pay as of 2004: $9,600,000
[Executive Pay, Business Week 4/21/2003; A Payday For Performance, Business Week 4/18/2005]

--Increase in productivity for 2005: +13.5 percent
--Percentage increase in average American CEO’s compensation since 2002: +24 percent
[Business Week, April 21, 2003; BLS, Labor Productivity and Costs]

--Inflation-adjusted median household income in 2000: $46,058
--Median household income in 2004: $44,389
[Historical Income Tables –Households, H-6 Table US Census]

--Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in White households: $1,066
--Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in Hispanic households: $2,141
--Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in Black households: $2,407
[Historical Income Tables –Households, H-6 White, not Hispanic, Black, and Hispanic Tables, US Census]

ON JOBS:
--American manufacturing jobs in 2001: 17,101,000
--American manufacturing jobs in 2005: 14,283,000
[The Economic State Of The Union, Manufacturing & Technology News Jan. 19, 2006]

--Number of private sector jobs created since 2001 excluding those produced by increased military spending: -1,160,000
--Number of American manufacturing jobs lost since 2001: 2,818,000
[Economic Policy Institute, Sept. 3, 2005; Manufacturing & Technology News, Jan. 19, 2006]

--Average number of fewer hours per week parents have to spend with their kids today than 35 years ago: 22
--Percentage decrease in average American household income since 2000: -3 percent
[National Statistics, PBS— Hedrick Smith; US Census]

ON ENERGY:
--Average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2000: $1.51
--Average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2005: $2.28
[December 2005 Monthly Energy Review, Energy Information Administration, Dec. 22, 2005]

--Percentage increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline since 2000: +51 percent
--Percentage increase in the price of a gallon of home heating oil since 2000: +94 percent
[Energy Information Administration, Dec. 22, 2005; Energy Information Administration, Jan. 2006]

--Average price of a gallon of home heating oil, Winter of 1999-2000: $1.24
--Projected price of a gallon of home heating oil, Winter of 2005-2006: $2.41
[Selected U.S. Average Consumer: Table WF01, Energy Information Administration, Jan. 2006]

--Average increase in profits for oil companies in third quarter of 2005: +69 percent
--Amount of subsidies provided to oil industry in 2005 energy bill: $6 billion
[Star-Telegram, Oct. 26, 2005; Public Citizen Aug. 2005]

ON HEALTH CARE:
--Percentage of companies that provided health care to their employees in 2000: 69 percent
--Percentage of companies that provided health care to their employees in 2005: 60 percent
[The Kaiser Family Foundation, June 14, 2005]

--Number of Americans without health insurance in 2000: 39,800,000
--Number of Americans without health insurance as of 2004: 45,800,000
[U.S. Census Bureau, Sept. 30, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau Aug. 30, 2005.]

--Percentage of companies that provided healthcare insurance to their employees as of 2005: 60 percent
--Number of additional Americans without health insurance since 2000: 6,000,000
[The Kaiser Family Foundation, June 14, 2005; U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 30, 2005]

ON COLLEGE COSTS:
--Average cost of yearly tuition at a 4-year public university in 2000: $7,020
--Average cost of yearly tuition at a 4-year public university in 2005: $10,982
[Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 27, 2000; The College Board, Oct.18, 2005]

--Average increase in yearly tuition costs for public university students since 2000: +$3,962
--Average loan burden a carried by student upon graduation as of 2003: $18,900
--Average increase families will pay in student loan interests due to Republican cuts in the 2006 education budget: $2,000 for students, $3,000 for parents
[Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 27, 2000; The College Board, Oct. 18, 2005; Nellie Mae Feb. 6, 2003; Wall Street Journal, Dec. 22, 2005]

ON RETIREMENT SECURITY:
--Americans working in private sector who can rely on a defined pension as of 2004: 6 percent
--Baby Boomers who believe they’re very prepared to meet living expenses of retirement as of 2005: 24 percent
[New York Times, Jan. 16, 2006; AllState, Oct. 4, 2005]

# # #

New Report Shows That Rural Wisconsinites Rely On Social Security Income More Than The Rest Of The State

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Cadott, WI – Wisconsin United to Protect Social Security along with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Secretary Rod Nilsestuen and the Wisconsin Farmers Union held a press conference today to decry steep benefit cuts and the risky privatization scheme under President Bush's Social Security proposal as part of the launch of Rural Americans for a Secure Future in Wisconsin. Wisconsin United released a report showing that the state’s rural areas depended on Social Security income more than the non-rural communities.

"Wisconsin is a state that has built its foundation on its farms and rural communities," said DATCP Secretary Rod Nilsestuen. "This rural Wisconsin report shows that it will be the backbone of this great state that will suffer the most under the President's new provisions. That is why I am here to let the President, and all those who support his plan know that rural Wisconsinites want their Social Security to remain secure."

"Wisconsin farmers have a tremendous financial, physical and emotional investment in their farm. They understand the value of what they've grown -- including Social Security," said Sue Beitlich, President of the Wisconsin Farmers Union. "Social Security is an important guaranteed retirement benefit that farmers have earned and are counting on. For most farmers who pass on their farm to the next generation, they rely on this benefit during their retirement years, and President Bush and Congress should not take that away."

The mandatory benefit cuts included in the President’s Social Security privatization plan would hurt Wisconsin’s rural communities more harshly than urban communities. For every county in Wisconsin, the Institute for America’s Future analyzed Social Security income and beneficiary data as well as other distinguishing characteristics from the Social Security Administration, Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Economic Analysis and other sources. The study found that the state's rural communities depend on income from Social Security more than the non-rural communities.

According to the National Association of Counties, there are 45 non-metropolitan or rural counties in Wisconsin. Total personal income in these counties was fully $27,980,112,000 in 2003 according the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA reports that individuals with Social Security income in these counties cumulatively received $2,270,744,000 in Social Security benefits - or 8.1 percent. Although non-rural communities rely on Social Security income, they do not nearly as much as rural areas. There are 27 non-rural communities in Wisconsin with a total personal income of $139,998,882,000 with individuals receiving $7,298,628,000 in Social Security benefits - or 5.2 percent.

"Rural Americans need the guaranteed benefits of Social Security even more than their urban counterparts because of the existing disparity in wealth and disability," said Jon Lipshutz, State Director for Wisconsin United. "This report clearly shows that any reduction in benefits would have a disproportionate negative impact on the state's rural communities. We call on Congressman Mark Green, who is also running for Governor, to stand up for rural communities in Wisconsin."

###

New Report Shows That Rural Nevadans Rely On Social Security More Than The Rest Of The State

Toby Chaudhuri — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

NEVADA - Nevada United to Protect Social Security held a press call today, joined by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), to release a report showing that Nevada's rural areas depend on Social Security income more than the non-rural communities. On the call, Senator Reid decried steep benefit cuts and the risky privatization scheme under President Bush's Social Security proposal as dangerous for the people of Nevada.

"Social Security and its guaranteed benefits reflect the best of America's values,” Senator Reid said. “That is why I can not support President Bush's plan to privatize the program. I believe his plan would destroy Social Security, and this report shows it would be especially disastrous for rural Nevada."

According to the Institute for America's Future, the President's proposal would result in a lifetime benefit reduction of over $181,886 for the typical Nevada worker, even after average gains to a private account are considered. However, these mandatory benefit cuts would hurt Nevada's rural communities more harshly than urban communities. For every county in Nevada, the Institute for America’s Future, one of Nevada United's partner organizations, analyzed Social Security income and beneficiary data as well as other distinguishing characteristics from the Social Security Administration, Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Economic Analysis and other sources. The study found that Nevada's rural communities depend on income from Social Security more than the non-rural communities.

According to the National Association of Counties, there are 14 non-metropolitan or rural counties in Nevada (of 16 total counties). Total personal income in these counties was fully $6,760,031,000 in 2003 according the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA reports that individuals with Social Security income in these counties cumulatively received $445,482,000 in Social Security benefits – or 6.6 percent of total personal income. Although non-rural communities rely on Social Security income, they do not nearly as much as rural areas. There are two non-rural counties in Nevada with a total personal income of $62,970,883,000 with individuals receiving $2,802,088,000 in Social Security benefits – or 4.4 percent of total personal income.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the President's plan to privatize Social Security and cut benefits would have a negative impact on the quality of life in Nevada," said Senator Reid. "Addressing the long term challenges of Social Security will take tough choices and prioritizing our budget, but it can be done. I hope President Bush will take privatization off the table so we can work on ways that will actually protect and strengthen Social Security."

"It is important that Nevada's representatives in Congress concern themselves with how changes to Social Security would affect all of their constituents," said Greg Leifer, State Director for Nevada United. "This report clearly shows that any reduction in benefits would have a disproportionate negative impact on Nevada's rural communities. We call on Representatives Gibbons and Porter to stand up for rural communities in Nevada."

The report also reveals that rural Nevada has a higher percentage of seniors, higher percentage of women who receive Social Security, and more disabled people receiving Social Security benefits than non-rural areas.

###

New Report Shows Rural Pennsylvanians Would Suffer More Under Bush/santorum Plan

Toby Chaudhuri — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Bellefonte, PA - At a press conference today in Centre County, Pennsylvanians United to Protect Social Security, along with Ni-Ta-Nee NOW and other members of the Pennsylvanians United coalition, released a report that illustrates how much rural and farming communities would suffer under the Bush/Santorum privatization plan.

Because Social Security plays a more significant role in the overall income of rural communities than it does in non-rural communities, the $205,632 reduction in retirement benefits facing a typical Pennsylvanian under the Bush/Santorum plan would hit rural families harder.

"Rural families work hard to earn a secure retirement, and the Bush/Santorum plan puts their retirement security in jeopardy," said Lauren Townsend, Executive Director of Citizens for Consumer Justice. "Social Security is a crucial guaranteed benefit for rural communities and it should not be gambled on the stock market. This report shows how important it is that we take privatization off the table."

According to the report by the Institute for America's Future, there are 23 counties in Pennsylvania that are considered to be rural. Among those counties, total personal income was fully $18,151,376,000 in 2003, the most recent county-specific information available. Individuals with Social Security income in these counties cumulatively received $1,594,581,000 in Social Security benefits – or 8.8 percent of total personal income.

While non-rural communities rely on Social Security income, their reliance on the program is not as great. There are 44 non-rural counties in Pennsylvania with a total personal income of $376,609,395,000 (again, as of 2003, the most recent year such data was available). Individuals in these counties received $23,342,259,000 in Social Security benefits in 2003 – or 6.2 percent of total personal income.

Clearly, rural communities are relying on Social Security benefits more heavily than non-rural communities. Rural Pennsylvanians tend to be older and tend to use survivor or disability benefits more frequently as a result of the risks associated with farming.

The Institute for America's Future further investigated the impact of the Bush/Santorum plan on rural women, specifically.

According to the report, as a group, senior women in rural communities have a more difficult time making ends meet than most other Americans. Nationally, 15 percent of rural women over the age of 60 are poor. By comparison, 11 percent of rural men over the age of 60 are poor. In addition, among rural seniors over the age of 85 with an income of less than $10,000 per year, 80 percent are women. As a result, rural women are less likely to be able to afford the Bush/Santorum benefit cuts.

"A greater number of rural women rely on Social Security benefits to survive than just about any other group," said Joanne Tosti-Vasey, Treasurer of Pennsylvania NOW and a member of Pennsylvanians United. "Privatizing Social Security and cutting retirement, survivor, and disability benefits would be a devastating blow to these women. It’s not fair and it’s not right. We’re standing up today to say NO to privatization and benefit cuts."

Speaking at the press conference today was Centre County resident Mary Angert who comes from a rural, working family. Angert spoke of the challenges facing rural, farming families.

"When I was growing up, my family wasn't any different than the other rural working families we knew," said Angert. "We worked hard every day to put food on the table and make ends meet. But eventually there came a time when it just wasn't enough. Thanks to the Social Security safety net, we were able to make it through. For my family, like so many rural families, Social Security was and continues to be an insurance policy against poverty and desperation. We have to do everything in our power to protect it and defeat any effort to privatize it."

Pennsylvanians United to Protect Social Security is a non-partisan coalition of organizations committed to opposing Social Security benefit cuts for the middle class and any effort to privatize Social Security. Coalition members include: Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia, AFSCME Council 13, Bethel AME Church of Lancaster, Citizens for Consumer Justice, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Delco Action Seniors, Delaware County Progressives, Institute for the Study of Civic Values, IUP Labor Education Center, Lake Erie Alliance for Democracy, National Council of Jewish Women-PA, National Organization of Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Ni-Ta-Nee NOW, PennPIRG, Pennsylvania ACORN, Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, Pennsylvania Alliance of Retired Americans, Pennsylvania Council of Churches, Pennsylvania NOW, Pennsylvania Womens Law Project, Philadelphia Area Coalition to Defend Social Security, Philadelphia Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Philly VietNam Vets Against the War, Third World Coalition, Urban League of Lancaster, VoteBluePA, WomenVotePA, and Women's Way.

# # #

NOTE: This report was released in Centre County today. For a copy of the report, please go to: http://emailimages.ctsg.com/caf/ssreport_rural_pa.pdf.

Bush Social Security Scheme Hits Rural Pennsylvanians Hardest

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0400

University Park, PA - As President Bush arrives in University Park, PA today to address the Future Farmers of America, one topic he's not likely to bring up is the negative impact of his Social Security cuts on rural Pennsylvanians.

Because rural Americans tend to be older and more dependent on Social Security, the Bush Social Security overhaul plan - which includes both Social Security privatization and middle-class benefit cuts - would increase the number of rural Pennsylvanians living in poverty.

"Rural Pennsylvanians and Pennsylvania's farmers are going to be in bad shape as a result of the Bush Social Security plan," said Joanne Tosti-Vasey, treasurer of Pennsylvania NOW and a member of Pennsylvanians United to Protect Social Security. "Farming is one of the most hazardous occupations in America. Because of the high incidence of disability and death, more farming families rely on disability benefits and survivors benefits. The Bush plan would wipe those benefits out. Privatization is a bad deal for rural Pennsylvanians."

Rural women will be hit even harder by the Bush Social Security overhaul. Women in rural communities often rely on survivor benefits and disability benefits. Under the Bush privatization plan, because workers who are disabled or die have less time to invest, surviving spouses and children could see benefit cuts of up to 35%.

Senior women in rural communities are often among Pennsylvania's poorest citizens. The reduction in retirement benefits as a result of Bush's privatization and benefit cuts plan will plunge even more of their ranks into poverty.

"A greater number of rural Pennsylvanians rely on Social Security to survive," added Dianne Gregg of Centre County. "Privatizing Social Security is like pulling the financial rug out from under them. It's a cruel trick and it will mean more rural and farming families will live in poverty. It's ironic that President Bush is speaking in Milton Eisenhower Auditorium as his brother President Eisenhower had the right idea about protecting rural families. Ike was right. Bush is wrong."

In 1954 President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a letter, "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are... a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Pennsylvanians United to Protect Social Security is a coalition of organizations committed to opposing Social Security benefit cuts for the middle class and any effort to privatize Social Security. Coalition members include: Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia, AFSCME Council 13, Bethel AME Church of Lancaster, Citizens for Consumer Justice, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Delco Action Seniors, Delaware County Progressives, Institute for the Study of Civic Values, IUP Labor Education Center, National Council of Jewish Women-PA, National Organization of Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Ni-Ta-Nee NOW, PennPIRG, Pennsylvania ACORN, Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, Pennsylvania Alliance of Retired Americans, Pennsylvania Council of Churches, Pennsylvania NOW, Pennsylvania Womens Law Project, Philadelphia Area Coalition to Defend Social Security, Philadelphia Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Philly VietNam Vets Against the War, Third World Coalition, Urban League of Lancaster, VoteBluePA, WomenVotePA, and Women's Way.

# # #

Key Wall Street Ceos Pay Social Security Taxes One Day A Year But Push For Risky Change

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

BOSTON— A new report, entitled ”Taxpayers for a Day: The Most to Gain, the Least to Lose” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and the Institute for America’s Future (IAF), finds that CEOs of Wall Street firms supporting the partial privatization of Social Security effectively pay into the system for only a few days a year. That is because Social Security tax payments are capped and most financial industry CEOs have compensation packages high enough to allow them to complete payments under the cap in the first few days of January.

“The CEO of Charles Schwab, David Pottruck, finished paying his Social Security taxes before the end of the Rose Bowl on January 1st, 2004,” said Scott Klinger, co-director of UFE’s Responsible Wealth project and a co-author of the report. “That’s $87,900 in a few hours. Most Americans pay all year long without ever reaching the annual cap.”

The report examines the pay structures of 26 CEOs of finance industry companies involved in backing privatization efforts and estimates the dates by which they will have finished paying Social Security taxes.

—Of the 26 CEOs at public and U.S.-owned firms, average compensation in 2004 was $17,712,239. The average CEO within this group surpassed the $87,900 earnings cap after 4 days on the job, or at the end of the day on January 4th, after which no Social Security tax would be collected.

—While 94 percent of workers effectively pay 12.4 percent of their annual income, including employer’s contribution, these CEOs pay an average effective rate of 0.16 percent of their annual income toward Social Security taxes. The average “Joe” taxpayer pays an effective rate that is more than 201 times the effective rate of the average CEO in this group.

—Seven of the CEOs are “taxpayers for a day.” Their pay was so high, they exceeded the 2004 $87,900 earnings cap in eight hours or less. These include the CEOs of Bear Stearns, Charles Schwab, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo/Strong Financial.

“To these guys, $90,000 is play money,” said report co-author Adam Luna, IAF Policy Director. “Trouble is, they want Congress to privatize Social Security so they can play with our money.”

“As most Americans worry about their ability to pay their taxes by April 15, they should keep in mind that Social Security would be funded and solvent into the next century if the highest-earning 6% of Americans would pay taxes on their full income, just like everyone else,” concluded Klinger.

Authors of the report at United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for America’s Future are available to comment on the report, which can be found at http://www.faireconomy.org/WallStreetCEOs.

United for a Fair Economy is an independent national non-profit that raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart.

The Institute for America’s Future (IAF) is a center of progressive strategy, organizing and issue campaigns. IAF anchors a progressive leadership network, enlisting leaders at the national, state and local levels to build a more just and democratic society.

###

The Institute for America's Future (IAF) is a center of non-partisan research and education. Drawing on a network of scholars, activists and leaders across the country, IAF develops policy ideas, educational materials and outreach programs. IAF focuses on kitchen-table concerns such as economic security, retirement security, health and safety on the job, clean water and safe food. IAF provides a growing network of progressive writers, leaders and activists with facts, ideas, and arguments through an active web page and email network.

Key Wall Street Ceos Pay Social Security Taxes One Day A Year But Push For Risky Change

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

 Of the 26 CEOs at public and U.S.-owned firms, average compensation in 2004 was $17,712,239. The average CEO within this group surpassed the $87,900 earnings cap after 4 days on the job, or at the end of the day on January 4th, after which no Social Security tax would be collected.

 While 94 percent of workers effectively pay 12.4 percent of their annual income, including employer’s contribution, these CEOs pay an average effective rate of 0.16 percent of their annual income toward Social Security taxes. The average “Joe” taxpayer pays an effective rate that is more than 201 times the effective rate of the average CEO in this group.

 Seven of the CEOs are “taxpayers for a day.” Their pay was so high, they exceeded the 2004 $87,900 earnings cap in eight hours or less. These include the CEOs of Bear Stearns, Charles Schwab, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo/Strong Financial.

Authors of the report at United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for America’s Future are available to comment on the report, which can be found at http://www.faireconomy.org/WallStreetCEOs.

###

New Report: Young Louisiana Residents Will Lose $152k Each In Social Security Benefits With Privatization

Toby Chaudhuri — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

BATON ROUGE, LA. – A typical 20-year-old Louisiana resident will lose $152,000 during retirement if the president’s Social Security privatization plan is enacted, according to a report released today by the Campaign for America’s Future. It would also mean a 10 percent benefit cut for a 55-year-old Louisiana worker today, a 15 percent benefit cut for a 45-year-old worker and a 25 percent benefit cut for a 35-year-old worker.

The report shows that there are currently more than 731,500 people in Louisiana who depend on Social Security’s safety net. More than 372,800 of these beneficiaries are workers, retired after a life of work. The typical retired worker in Louisiana received a Social Security check for $830 each month in his or her mailbox in 2003.

The Campaign for America's Future released a report and ran a series of ads in Shreveport last month questioning who would benefit the most from the decisions that Rep. James McCrery, R-La., will make as chair of the Social Security Subcommittee. Citing his ties to securities and commercial banking industries, the ads pointed out that McCrery does not "work for" Louisiana residents.

The Campaign for America's Future and Americans United to Protect Social Security — a new coalition led by the Campaign for America’s Future, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, US Action and 200 other organizations, is countering President Bush’s Social Security privatization blitz with daily news conferences, grassroots mobilization and advertisements across the country.

# # #

**NOTE: Media representatives interested in a copy of the Campaign for America’s Future Louisiana Social Security report should visithttp://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/sotu-ss_LA.pdf.**

-- 30 --

New Report: Young Louisiana Residents Will Lose $152k Each In Social Security Benefits With Privatization

Toby Chaudhuri — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

# # #

**NOTE: Media representatives interested in a copy of the Campaign for America’s Future Louisiana Social Security report should visit
http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/sotu-ss_LA.pdf.**

Factcheck.org Gets The Facts Wrong

Toby Chaudhuri — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0500

The Campaign for America's Future responded to major errors in FactCheck.org's analysis of the group's ads that question who stands to benefit from the decisions House Subcommittee on Social Security Chair Rep. James McCrery, R-La., makes in Washington.

FactCheck.org made up an imaginary scenario, analyzed it and blamed the Campaign for America's Future for the mistake. The Campaign for America's Future asked FactCheck.org to publicly set the record straight by pulling the flawed analysis from their website.

"The fact is, securities firms would reap a windfall from the president's privatization plan and they are contributing handsomely to policymakers to guarantee that windfall," said Campaign for America's Future Policy Director Adam Luna.

FactCheck.org Analyzes the Wrong Facts:FactCheck.org analyzed the Federal Thrift Savings Plan to estimate potential securities interest gains from the president's privatization plan, but the White House says that the president's plan to privatize Social Security is different from the Thrift Savings Plan. "The White House acknowledges that there are many differences between the TSP and the proposed accounts, and that Bush's system would be more expensive to run." James Sauber, chairman of the employee Thrift Advisory Council, agrees. Sauber observes that the president's privatization plan is "not really like a TSP at all." [Washington Post, 3/3/05]

FactCheck.org Contradicts Itself:FactCheck.org quotes a Bush administration official as having an "estimate from the Social Security actuary of 30 basis points" for the cost of administering the Bush privatization plan, but later in their analysis, FactCheck.org uses the Thrift Savings Plan's "6 basis points" to justify their accusations against the Campaign for America's Future—five times less expensive than the White House says their plan costs.

FactCheck.org Misreports About Campaign for America's Future TV Ad:To build their case against the Campaign for America's Future, FactCheck.org says that a Campaign for America's Future TV ad (unrelated to the subject of the FactCheck.org analysis) was pulled off the air after an objection was filed from Rep. Jim McCrery's, R-La., campaign fund. FactCheck.org failed to say that the complaint was found to be entirely without merit and the ad resumed airing immediately, according to cable station manager George Servin of Shreveport, La.

FactCheck.org Criticizes Every Report Done About Securities Industry ProfitsAccording to FactCheck.org, every analysis available to date on the potential gains of the securities industry because of privatization is wrong. The Securities Industry Association released their own study to make the case that the industry would not reap windfall profits from privatization. The Campaign for America's Future gave the SIA the benefit of the doubt and cited the SIA figure in its ad. FactCheck.org argues that "the Campaign for America's Future should have used" a lower profit estimate by the SIA, but one sentence later, FactCheck.org casually adds, "but even that figure is way too high." Widely reported estimates of profits from privatization actually dwarf the SIA figure by hundreds of billions of dollars.

# # #

The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center of progressive strategy, organizing and issue campaigns. CAF anchors a progressive leadership network, enlisting leaders at the national, state and local levels to build a more just and democratic society. The Campaign is leading the fight about America's priorities – against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for affordable health care and more.