A Moment of Clarity In Social Security Debate
A Moment of Clarity In Social Security Debate
In the past week conservatives have floated several contradictory Social Security reform proposals, making it difficult to discern their true intentions.
Luckily, there have been a few moments of clarity in the debate that cut through the rhetorical clutter and get to the core goal of the conservative’s fight: the abolishment of the principle of shared responsibility and sacrifice that Social Security embodies.
The most recent example came yesterday when Republican Rep. Jack Kingston (GA) explicitly stated the Republican strategy — get any Social Security bill through the House and Senate and then add private accounts in a conference committee:
“Anything they can get passed out of the Senate we should consider a major victory,” Mr. Kingston said, adding that if the Senate can pass any sort of Social Security bill — even without personal accounts — the House would “meet them in conference committee with personal accounts.”
This reaffirms what the White House’s endgame is as told to the New York Times last month:
” they will seek to lure Democrats into negotiations on the program’s solvency and prepare for an endgame in which Mr. Bush will make an all-out push to convince the country that individual investment accounts will reduce the pain of benefit cuts or tax increases ”
All of which originates from the first moment of clarity back in January when the White House’s Office of Strategic Initiatives circulated a memo laying out their ideological and political goal:
“The debate about Social Security is going to be a monumental clash of ideas–and it’s important for the conservative movement that we win both the battle of ideas and the legislation that will give those ideas life At the end of the day, we want to promote both an ownership society and advance the idea of limited government. For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win–and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country.”
- Jason Miner
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This could work. People are very unfocused on this issue now and might not notice a rigged conference committee. If Bush has taught us anything it's not to declare mission accomplished too early.
June 30th, 2005 at 2:32 pmWouldn't put it past the lame bastards to do exactly that. These pigs know where all the cracks are located and they are experts in slithering through them.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:07 pmI swear the republicans are getting dumber and dumber. We all have heard that absolute power corrupts absolutly but I didn't know that absolute power makes one dumb as nails.
Save Social Security. Eliminate the $89,000 payroll tax cap.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:07 pmLeave SS alone, we dont need private funds.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:08 pmcan someone tell our Senators? They don't seem to be listening to common sense.
or their constituents.
June 30th, 2005 at 4:19 pmWhen Ronald Reagan assumed the office of the presidency the SS tax on personal income was 9.6 percent. It is now 15.3 percent.
That is about a 67 percent increase.
We're at the "puke point."
June 30th, 2005 at 4:25 pmLet me get this straight - when social security was set up, the retirement age was set at 65 yet the average life expectancy was around 67. So you could expect to collect on the average around two years. Using that logic, what FDR really set up, was another way to tax us without us realizing it. Since the program ran huge surpluses for years, democrats built all kinds of other social programs into it to build upon their voter base. Fast forward to 2005 and program is going to collapse under its own weight within the next decade. President Bush wants to revamp the program to give us greater control and to prevent any further usage of the slush funds. Now I can see why the democrats are so angry.
June 30th, 2005 at 4:57 pmClever Randy. Did Rush tell you that?
June 30th, 2005 at 5:16 pmSocial Security is run as an 'insurance fund', not a 'retirement account', and anyone who doesn't understand this isn't paying attention. If it were a retirement account, your heirs would receive the money you had contributed, and your money would run out if you lived too long. The SS Funds are a hedge fund betting on the age americans live, and those who live long enough cash in on the bet. It's no different than car insurance - you don't get your money back unless you have an accident, except this works the opposite way. This is an insurance against old age...
Idiots like Gelertner at yale who talk about it in terms of retirement accounts are just blithering idiots...
June 30th, 2005 at 5:30 pmThis is undoubtedly what will happen. The more noise made in advance about the plan to surreptitiously add it in committee, the more underhanded they will look when it happens. We need constant reporting on this topic.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:39 pmRandy-
Ever the GOP shill, let's cover some of your more ludicrous points:
Fast forward to 2005 and program is going to collapse under its own weight within the next decade.
Better stop drinking that GOP kool-aid son, the GAO said SS is solvent until 2041, which is in the next three and a half decades.
President Bush wants to revamp the program to give us greater control and to prevent any further usage of the slush funds.
Damn kid, you can't get ebough of that GOP kool-aid! Privatizing SS won't give us "greater control" as you put it, since the government will still dictate what investments people can make under the Bush plan.
And those "slush funds" you seem so concerned about the government spending is exactly what Bush so desperately relies upon. How else do you think he can maintain tax cuts and spend over $300 billion on foreign wars?
Now I can see why the democrats are so angry.
I don't know if Democrats are angry per se, but it sure isn't pleasant for us to have to constantly correct GOP shills like you in this debate.
Your penchant for misinformation is bar none.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:08 pm"Fast forward to 2005 and program is going to collapse under its own weight within the next decade."
This is a great example of CONservatives love to lie more than they love life itself. With no changes to the social security we are solvent until the mid 21st century, at which point some 80% of the benefits would still be getting paid by payroll taxes. At that point we could either cut benefits by 20%, raise the retirement age, remove the wage cap on those who only currently get a portion of their wages garnished, or fund it through other tax means (like the current deficit spending which the administration seems to have no problem with).
The GAO specifically stated that if we removed the wage cap so that everyone gets the same percentage of their wages taxed - even the wealthy, then SS appears to have no end in sight of its net positive.
All I can ask Randy is why do you hate america so much? It's clear you don't care enough to tell the truth, so I all I can say is you must hate it terribly...
June 30th, 2005 at 6:37 pmI'm pretty sure that 2041 is the Social. Security Administration estimate. The GAO's is 2051
July 1st, 2005 at 2:58 amStarting in 2017, Social Security will take in less money than it gives out. That shortfall will have to be paid out of general revenues, otherwise the S.S. tax rate will increase, or benefits will be cut.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:13 pmRewind to the last time SS (as we know it) was going to disappear. I believed it.
I started a mutual fund for my retirement (that lost almost 2/3 of its value in 1987) that is worth about 18% more than the actual cash I've put into it. In the 90's I started an IRA. It's worth almost $1000 more than the money I've contributed (after the "dot.com" bubble burst).
Bottom line children. Take it from an old lady. If you want the "benefits of private ownership" don't forget the RISK. If you want retirement investments, do your own investing. The government that "controls" your private SS account giveth, but the next government can taketh away.
My usual income is in the $20-26,000 range but my last job was outsourced to Canada and India a year ago. In 1994, I was making $12.50 an hour. Ten years later, the best I've been able to find is $10 (that's with no guarantee of 40 hours/week and laughable healthcare coverage). And I read yesterday that the cost of living has risen 34% since 1992.
As Tom DeLay so eloquently put it: "Congress needs its $3,100 COLA to keep from losing purchasing power." For once, I agree with him. So where is my $16.75/hour job?
I have a BS and post graduate degree (which I paid for). I have also paid for training and re-training. This year, I would be eligible for early retirement (at 62) but I can't survive on $875 SS a month BEFORE taxes. If I can keep working until 66, I'll get close to $1100 a month. That will be enough to keep me going if I can find part-time work. And if I can stay healthy.
I bought a little house for $35,000 in 1978. Now some cars cost more than that. The house is now worth over $175,000. Nice! But it needs a new roof and some foundation repairs, new gutters, 3 new windows, some major yard work -- about $15,000 minimum.
Bottom line again -- I own, I have equity, but I also have expenses and I have RISK. The last time the value went to about $80,000 in the early 80's, but it also went back down to about $45,000 in the late 80's. Who knows where it will go now. And if I sold it, where could I afford to move?
My 35-year old refrigerator is on its last legs. Ditto my 1983 Honda and my 1998 computer. And I'm out of work. Can't hope for a rich relative to die and leave me a pile: I buried the last of them over 5 years ago. Bottom line again! Take care of yourself! Pay yourself first in a retirement plan YOU control. And stay in touch with your kids -- you may need them in the future.
KIDS (that's anybody under 30)! Don't let the flimflam fool you. The "Ownership society" has rewards AND risks. The biggest risk is the big boys still control you and they can yank it away as easily as they can give it out. Remember, private SS accounts take money FROM your SS and COST money to administrate.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:40 pmThe most telling fact about the latest "experimental" proposal is it's temporary (so they say). Only going to last for about 11 (?) years. But the bureaucrats will have to be paid for the next 60 years to keep track of the accounts until you retire. Guess what argument will be made at the end of the "experimental" proposal?
What a good deal -- for the bureaucrats anyway.
Thank you Nikki, my sob story sounds much like yours (except my investments are worthless- count yourself lucky). Hope you kids were paying attention. If they (who can raise their own salaries) want to save social security, then remove the caps, raise the retirement age, or adjust the rates NOW to prevent the oncoming "crisis." If they want to give us more control, then allow for more graduated retirement - the later you retire, the more you get (yes, you can do that now but it could be even more flexible.) If you want control over your retirement investments, start your own (and hope that what happened to Nikki and me doesn't happen to you.) Keep Social Security simple! The more complex the more expensive it will be to manage.
July 2nd, 2005 at 6:05 am