A stark choice for Gordon Smith
Russell Sadler
[Editor's note: For more than 30 years, Russell Sadler's daily radio and television commentaries were heard on broadcast stations in Oregon, Southwest Washington and Northern California. His weekly newspaper column appears regularly in many newspapers throughout the region. Starting today, his weekly column will also appear every Sunday on BlueOregon. Learn more about Russell Sadler on the BlueOregon contributors page.]
It began with an article in a Portland newspaper in September 2003.
The article chronicled Robert Bowden who took early retirement from Consolidated Freightways in 1999 after 32 years with the company. Bowden’s monthly pension dropped from $3,931 to $1,942 after the motor carrier declared bankruptcy and the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation moved in to “rescue” the failing pension plan. Bowden was forced to sell his Lake Oswego home and return to work.
"It's not an easy market when you've got 30 years with one company and all of the sudden you have to look for employment," Bowden told Oregonian reporter Brent Hunsberger. "At 59, you're not the most attractive guy on the block."
I began looking at elderly employees in a whole new light. In my early 60s and graying too, I found I could strike up a conversation with a line like, “Bored with retirement?” and many older workers willingly told their stories.
A 72-year-old clerk in the deli in a Eugene supermarket was forced back to work when the large telecommunications company he worked for more than 30 years reduced medical benefits for its retirees and he could no longer afford the $1,600 a month cost of his wife’s prescription drugs.
A woman clerk in a Willamette Valley Bi-Mart store is working in her 80s because the large retailer for which she worked for 30 years went through bankruptcy and her pension payments were reduced so much she had to return to work.
A state employee considering early retirement was forced to stay working because she had put her PERS account in the “growth fund” and lost nearly 50 percent of its value when the high tech bubble burst in late 2000. The market regained some of what she lost -- she has about 75 percent of the retirement fund she had before the bubble burst, but as she nears 65, her retirement will be substantially more modest than she expected.
Poor investing choices, to be sure, but like many “investors” who made individual decisions with their pension money, she was lured by stock market gains that increased her wealth by more than 20 percent a year. Younger workers may make up some of their losses. But many older “investors” had the misfortune to watch the stock market tank just before they retired. They will never make up their losses. The money is gone. They may as well have played with their pension money in one of Oregon’s tribal casinos.
These three people all have one thing in common. They are relying on their Social Security benefits to cushion the losses in their personal pension plans and maintain a respectable standard of living.
These are just three sad stories but they are representative of an under-reported tidal wave of failing private pension plans. The government does not publish statistics about the number of victims of pension plan failures. That is not the “message” the Bush administration wants the public to hear as it tries to persuade Congress to make Social Security appear unattractive and steer more money into the volatile stock market.
Serious criticism of the Bush administration’s plans to “reform” Social Security will have to wait for a more detailed explanation. But serious, reasoned criticism is not likely to deter the Karl Rove propaganda machine. Rove has political debts to pay. Rove’s machine is concentrating on states where Republicans and perhaps a few pliable Democrats can be bullied into vote for privatizing Social Security whether lawmakers’ constituents want it or not. Oregon may become one of those states.
Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, was elected after wrapping himself in the mantle of former Sen. Mark Hatfield, whose independent, maverick ways were something of a legend. But Smith’s voting record displays little of Hatfield’s independence. Smith will have to display substantial independence on radical changes in Social Security, however. Republicans are a minority in Oregon. Alone, they cannot elect any Republican to statewide office.
Independents elected Smith in 1996 and reelected him in 2002. Independents expect Smith to represent them. No poll shows any groundswell of public opinion favoring radical surgery to Social Security among Oregon’s independent voters. That is not surprising. Independents ask irritating questions like “Why introduce risk and uncertainty into Social Security when private pensions are suffering from risk and volatility and promised benefits are so easily undone in bankruptcy court?”
Smith chairs the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging and has some expertise in this area. Depending on the number of Republicans who bail out on the administration’s plan to turn Roosevelt’s New Deal into Bush’s Raw Deal, Sen. Smith could become a pivotal player faced with a stark choice. Who does he represent? His party or his people? They are not on the same side on this issue.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
4:56 p.m.
Feb 13, '05
Russell,
Welcome to the neighborhood. It's good to have you on Blue!
Feb 13, '05
Well that was just the single best piece I've read on the issue.
Thank you.
Feb 13, '05
Russell! Great to see you in print again! And my thanks to whoever it was at Blueoregon who made this possible.
10:32 p.m.
Feb 13, '05
LT... Russell approached BlueOregon. And we're very happy to have him on board.
Feb 13, '05
Yeah, Russell Sadler. Pip, pip, HOORAY!
But ... You're in this, too, now that you wrote that. I don't understand why or how you give Gordon Smith one single shred of ... what, benefit of the doubt? Equanimity? Common respect?
Can somebody anybody please explain for me what they see in Smith that is worth anything, the least bit of credit. Is there anytime anywhere Smith has ever done anything or said anything that was worth anything, maybe in some personal conversation with him or anecdote about him that shows there's something to him?
I have spoken with him. I have listened to him. I have read things he has signed, doubting as I did that he actually wrote it. Smith is a zero, in my judgment. An absolute zero. There is nothing there. And I think I'm being kind in that characterization, stopping short of going negative, below zero. I don't think he is evil, but he could be hiding it. I just think he is a completely self-pre-occupied nothing.
Please, Senator Smith, do nothing, have no purpose or plan. Keep the seat warm. Don't. Touch. Nothing. And quit while we're ahead.
<h1></h1>Feb 13, '05
WOW! Russell Sadler is back!!! Haven't heard your voice since I moved from Eugene years ago. Thank you Blue Oregon!!
Regarding the pressures on G.S. (and what we need to counter) the WP had to great articles on Sunday:
First--
The Meathead Proposition (washingtonpost.com): "Bush might as well be proposing legislation that two plus two is five. And if that happened, there would be no shortage of Republicans prepared to endorse this view, experts on arithmetic to declare that it is a very difficult question, research to indicate that the answer may lie anywhere between 2.3 and 7.09, moderate Washington sages to urge caution, media to report both sides of the question, and media critics to accuse the media of a subtle bias in favor of two plus two is four."The Meathead Proposition (washingtonpost.com)
<hr/>Second-- Conservatives Join Forces for Bush Plans (washingtonpost.com): "With billions of dollars at stake, a large network of influential conservative groups is mounting a high-priced campaign to help the White House win passage of legislation to partially privatize Social Security and limit class-action lawsuits.
Corporate America, the financial services industry, conservative think tanks, much of the Washington trade association community, the Republican Party and GOP lobbyists and consultants are prepared to spend $200 million or more to influence the outcome of two of the toughest legislative fights in recent memory."Conservatives Join Forces for Bush Plans (washingtonpost.com):
Feb 13, '05
Tenskwatawa,
Sen. Smith was not on the "holier-than-thou" bandwagon for impeaching Billy-boy for lying about a blowjob. He is being very vocal about BPA issue, Social Security, and Medicaid--where is Sen. Wyden on these issues? Yes, he wants to destroy Alaska and suppress civil rights from the gays and lesbian communities.
Name one Democrat that has voted prefect on ever core issue within the Democratic Party--dealing with environment, social justice, social welfare, employment, and education?
Yes, Sen. Smith is conservative in a progressive state. Nevertheless, the state of Oregon is not always progressive on the all liberal issues all the time. If that was the case, then there would not be a Republican Party of Oregon.
Feb 13, '05
I don't have lots of respect for Gordon, but he is not a zero like Tom DeLay. Every once in awhile there is the sort of grace note we saw from him as St.Senate President--when he gave the tribute to a dying Frank Roberts. How many other Republicans would do something nice for a Democratic patriarch--look at the GOP state senators who wouldn't even be on the floor for a Memorial resolution to Clay Myers, because he was too moderate a Republican for them.
No one forces Gordon Smith to do the joint town hall meetings with Ron Wyden--I do believe that Jan. 1996 changed both of them and perhaps they realized they get more done cooperating at whatever level rather than always fighting each other. Call me an optimist, but..
David Sarasohn has a great column in Sunday Oregonian about whether Gordon Smith is truly a member of the "Conscience Caucus".
And don't forget, that US Senate majority only exists as long as all Republicans vote together. If McCain, Hagel, Chafee, Snowe and Collins all vote together, and all the Democrats stick together, it only takes one more like G.Smith or Voinovich to deny Bush a majority. So while I do not trust Gordon Smith very much, it is smart not to be nasty to him without reason--just when he does something stupid. If you think he does something halfway smart (like siding with Oregonians against a stupid Bush proposal), call his office and thank him. If push came to shove, the fact that Oregonians appreciated what he did on tough decisions might just turn the tide on an important vote sometime.
6:52 a.m.
Feb 14, '05
Russell, welcome to BlueOregon.
I saw this column over the weekend and really enjoyed it. Glad I won't have to search the seemingly ever more difficult to find newspapers on the web for your stuff.
To the issue in the column: During one of the joint town halls with Wyden, Smith said that when he votes with Wyden everybody is happy and that when he takes the opposite position from Wyden they are pleasing all Oregonians. We need to make sure that both Wyden (remember, he abandoned his almost mythical, and predominantly historical seniors base and voted FOR the Medicare bill drug bill) and Smith realize that a majority of Oregonians want to keep the security in Social Security and oppose the privatization schemes.
7:25 a.m.
Feb 14, '05
Russell,
BlueOregon just got better. Thanks for adding your voice.
Senator Gordon Smith gives us his "moderate Republican" persona when he is in state parading around with Senator Wyden. In Washington he is clearly under the influence of DeLay.
I will continue to remind him he represents the people of Oregon on the social security issue and many other issues. Gordon needs to be reigned in. It will take a concerted effort by many Oregonians to make it perfectly clear we do not support the privatization of social security.
Feb 14, '05
I think the choice is much more difficult then that. And I think Russel will be singing a different tune if Sen. Smith's acquisistion of the Sen. Hatfield "mantle" of rugged individulism from the administration's agenda costs Oregon the reauthorization of the rural schools bill. For those of you keeping score at home, that's millions and millions and millions of dollars to Oregon counties. It means many counties (like Lane amoung others), fall right off a "cliff". I rather hope th Sen. plays nice.
9:30 a.m.
Feb 14, '05
The rural school and county money reauthorization is probably DOA. Michael Rey, the timber industry lobbyist who now "supervises" the Forest Service has already said that publicly -- part of the administration's policy of "reducing dependence on government."
I don't think they can blackmail Sen. Smith with that pot of cash.
It's hard to have any sympathy for the counties like Lane. They failed to treat timber receipts like the capital assests they are. Since the end of World War II when federal forests were open to heavy logging, the counties used biollionsof timber dollars to pay operationg costs bragging about how they were keeping taxes low. One of the few times the counties treated timber receipts as capital assets, they built sprawl-inducing highways in suburbia.
Trees are, of course, a renewable resource. But old growth forests are not renewable in our lifetime. The counties took the cash from trees that had been growing for eight generations and spent it in one generation. Now the remaining stumpage is barely a generation old and there is not as much wealth in the wood.
The counties willl indeed "fall of the cliff," unless they can sell the voters on a larger tax base. That is unlikely in the present climate. Perhaps it is time to re-think the role of county government. I have been arguing it has been obsolete for at least 30 years ;-)
Feb 14, '05
I don't think Smith can be blackmailed either. But, as you know this is a "go along to get along" business. And as I understand it, Michael Rey didn't say it was DOA so much as he was conspicuously silent on the subject.
My concern with a postition like yours is that it seems a fairly expensive "I told you so". Combine the PERS and Health increases with that much revenue loss and you have prescription for a lot of pain.
The reauthorization is important to many people. This seems like a good place for people of good will and differing opinions to work together.
2:13 p.m.
Feb 14, '05
Russell:
It's great to see you here. Very much looking forward your Sunday posts.
Your friend and former student, Charlie Burr
Feb 14, '05
Aaron's:
1- "Sen. Smith was not on the ... bandwagon for impeaching" President Clinton.
2- "He is ... vocal about BPA issue, Social Security, and Medicaid"
3- "Yes, he wants to destroy Alaska and suppress civil rights"
<h2>4- "Yes, Sen. Smith is conservative"</h2>Wyden is about the same, approximately a zero. This thread is not about Wyden. Look at Smith and cry in pity.
(Democrats who have voted perfectly on: environment, social justice, social welfare, employment, and education: Senator Wellstone. Senator Kennedy. Senator Clinton.)
<h1></h1>Feb 15, '05
Tenkwatawa,
Clinton's and Kennedy's prefect civil rights votes:
What about the Patriot Act? That infringes on the Bill of Rights. They vote yeah on it. The vote to make Dr. Rice the Sec of State. They voted yeah on it.
Clinton's and Kennedy's prefect education votes: What do you like unfunded federal mandates like No Child Left Behind? They vote yeah on it.
These are what I could rattle off the top of my head. If I combed through the US senate roll call histories I could find more, especially with Sen Kennedy tenture.
Feb 15, '05
You don't want to mention these examples as reasons not to reform Social Security. These examples work against us!
Look, just like PERS and Social Security these private failing pensions are "defined benefit" programs.
Bush wants to make Social Security, and Republicans in Salem want to make PERS "defined contribution" programs.
Russell is actually making their point...if we point out that private defined benefit pension programs are failing it will lead to even more calls for reform, not just with PERS and SS but then these private pensions programs.
Remember, it is not the "defined contribution" programs that are failing.
If we continue to follow Russells logic then everybody with be forced out of defined benifit and into defined contribution.
Feb 15, '05
By the way...
Defined contribution is like a 401(k) where your employer puts in a certain amount and it is your individual responsibility to retire with money.
Defined Benefit is where your employer will give you a specific amount to retire on.
Feb 15, '05
Eric,
That Defined benefit from your employer's amount is not required in your 401k. If it is a bad year, the 401k monies will be only yours. On good years, then your employer might max out its side of the equation.
Feb 15, '05
Aaron:
A 401(k) is a defined “contribution” program -- by definition they are not defined “benefit” programs.
Social Security and traditional "pension" programs are where the employer takes the risk of the market over years and always makes sure he/she can pay you a certain amount when you retire. These pension programs are the ones that are failing -- which is why Russell’s comments undermine efforts to defeat Bush.
Whether or not you employer contributes to your 401(k) he/she is only responsible for what he/she puts in -- not what you get out at the end. That is a defined "contribution" program
Republicans are pushing to get all retirement programs to be defined contribution – the employee takes the long-term risk.
When progressives point out the currnet and potencially massive failures of defined benefit programs like Russell did – it only help’s Bush’s point.