We took the bait and they took our money.
Posted on 06/22/2005 11:29:32 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Senate Democrats said on Wednesday they would not be drawn into a White House "bait and switch" strategy on Social Security and insisted President Bush take private investment accounts off the table.
Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said Bush's insistence on individual investment accounts stood in the way of bipartisan negotiation over the retirement program's financial future.
"Until the president publicly takes private accounts off the table, bait and switch is still a real possibility," said Baucus. He said a flurry of new Social Security proposals by Republicans in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives were part of a "last gasp" effort to keep private accounts alive in the face of growing public opposition.
Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, said after a meeting with Bush on Tuesday that the president welcomed an alternative he plans to offer that omits individual accounts. The bill would shore up the U.S. retirement program by incorporating a plan backed by Bush that slows benefit growth for middle- and upper-income people by linking them to prices rather than wages.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Bennett proposal "calls the bluff" of Democrats. He said Bush still felt any permanent solution to overhauling Social Security needs to include personal retirement accounts.
"I think what the real question here is: Are Democratic leaders going to start coming forward with ideas and solutions or are they going to simply put up a stop sign and say no to solving this important priority for the American people?" McClellan said.
House Republicans planned to unveil a proposal that would use Social Security surpluses to finance individual accounts. The measure is similar to one Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, plans to offer in the Senate.
Rep. Clay Shaw, a Florida Republican who was to unveil the proposal later on Wednesday, said it would create accounts but not rely on the private sector. Instead, the accounts would be financed by Social Security surpluses and hold government bonds similar to those held in the Social Security trust fund.
The retirement program collects more in taxes than it pays out in benefits and will continue to do so until 2017, according to the latest trustees report. Polls show that while the public is skeptical about Bush's individual account plan, people do not like Social Security money being spent on other government programs.
But Democrats argue that Republican policies have created financial problems for Social Security.
"They've taken tax cut after tax cut after tax cut and created a deficit which put the Social Security surplus in jeopardy," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat. "They have frittered away, because of irresponsible fiscal policy, the Social Security surplus."
I am really hoping for a bait and switch. Have the Republicans in congress promise to take them out, and then return them in conference.
The democrats only oppose, obstruct and pee in the pool. Any attempt for them to act responsibly and in the interests of the nation will be, well, opposed, obstructed and peed upon.
I think that's a fine idea! But do you really trust this current batch of 'pubbies to make such a bold move?
Thought that was what Bush was upto. The Dems still said there is no problem with SS....In other words, leave it alon until the Dems get the Whitehouse.
As long as it's not the "smelly" cheese.
On 2nd thought, serve these wussies the smelly cheese.
We took the bait and they took our money.
Voters of Montana need to send Max Baucus into retirement he is out of step with the voters of Montana as a U.S senator.
He sounds like a chris dodd senator type from connecticut.
In other words, government would still be managing our retirement money.
We don't need "accounts". We need to be left alone to manage our money as we see fit, without the paternalistic hand of the politicians guiding us along the way - at all.
When Democrats charge Republicans with some nefarious plot, it is strongly advised to immediately consider whether they are in fact guilty of the very thing about which they accuse. For example, in this case, it is in fact the Democrats who are attempting to do a "bait and switch," getting Republicans to participate in a "reform Social Security" process after having foresworn the use of the only tool that might possible help them avoid total defeat.
There is no Social Security trust fund.
Currently, Social Security taxes exceed Social Security distributions, so the surplus goes into the pot to fund other federal government operations. They pretend it is a loan.
Soon, Social Security distributions will exceed Social Security taxes. The difference will be paid for from other tax revenue. For awhile, they will pretend that the federal government is paying back a loan.
The Social Security system becomes insolvent the day that distributions exceed taxes. From then on, Social Security distributions will be paid by using other taxes or by incurring more government debt.
Amen brother.
I have been paying social security taxes for over 30 years now. If I never worked another day, I would receive the maximum benefits when I retire. I would willingly give up any claim to the social security benefits that I have alrady earned if they would just stop making me pay in any more.
Social Security itself is a massive bait and switch.
1) All Social Security excess funds to be kept in Treasury bonds and not borrowed upon. (No IOUs no hands in the cookie jar).
2) No Social Security funds to Alchoholics or Drug Users and certainly no (SSI) to anyone less than the minimum retirement age.
3) All folk born in 2006 may have a minimum retirement age of 65 and maximum benefits at 75.
This may add 20 years more till insolvency. Make the Dems propose this since they oppose interest on social security.
The Social Security surplus should not even be considered when they are talking about general spending. It was supposed to be a "trust fund" - which I believe consists now of IOU's.
Somehow I don't trust the government to put the surplus in private accounts - would much rather see a percentage in private accounts by the individual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.