Posted on 09/18/2004 8:06:09 AM PDT by qam1
BUT IN POLITICAL MINEFIELD, REAL PLAN ISN'T FEASIBLE, ANALYSTS SAY
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON - President Bush's vision of an "ownership society" is built more than anything else on a sweeping promise: that he will transform Social Security so younger workers can divert some of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts.
At a rally in Pennsylvania last week, Bush declared, as he does at almost every campaign stop nowadays, that "younger workers ought to be able to take some of their taxes and set up a personal savings account, an account that they can call their own, an account that the government cannot take away and an account that they can pass on from one generation to the next."
It is a longstanding promise, popular with many younger workers and with conservatives who argue that the huge social insurance programs of the New Deal and the Great Society badly need to be modernized.
The private accounts, first proposed by Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign, fit neatly into his philosophy of an "ownership society," the idea that Americans should be given more control over -- and responsibility for -- their health care, retirement and financial lives.
Advocates of private accounts say they would solve the government pension program's long-term fiscal problems, allowing today's younger workers to retire with a nest egg bigger than the government could provide.
Michael Tanner, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice, and a leading backer of private accounts, argued: "Under the current system, you pay in and the politicians in Washington decide how much you're going to get in the end. Under individual accounts, you own and control that money. It belongs to you."
But behind the sweeping promise are some harsh political realities that could loom large in this fall's debates and the final clashes of the presidential campaign. Bush has never proposed a specific plan to reach his goal -- for good reasons, critics say. With the budget already running large annual deficits, recent estimates of typical plans for private accounts show they would cost as much as $2 trillion over the first 10 years.
Moreover, the changes Bush seeks are difficult politically in a polarized Congress, where many Democrats are convinced that the Bush plan would undermine one of the last pillars of the New Deal.
Experts say that creating such accounts would only worsen the nearer-term strains on Social Security, as the baby boomers retire. John Rother, policy director for AARP, the lobby for older Americans, said, "Private accounts would make Social Security's fiscal health much worse, without drastic cuts in guaranteed benefits."
Democrats say Bush's vagueness is by design. Rep. Robert T. Matsui, a senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, declared: "They can act really brave over at the White House when they talk conceptually. They say, 'I'm not cutting benefits, or raising payroll taxes, and I will let young people divert 2 percent.' It sounds wonderful -- and it cannot be done."
Republicans counter that the Democrats are trying to retain their traditional advantage concerning Social Security and are choosing to scare the elderly rather than confront the necessity for an overhaul. Bush said this week that "you'll hear the same rhetoric you hear every campaign," adding, "It is the tired, pathetic way to campaign for the presidency."
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who has long pushed for a Social Security overhaul, said, "I think the president's position is as far as you can go in a political climate."
Heads up! X'er ping!
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
T-bills, mortgage securities, government bonds, long-term CDs all deliver a much greater return than the stale Social Security System.
We must wean the people away from SS starting with means testing and raising the retirement age from 65 to 72.
When SS was set up the life expectancy was barely 60.
Now it's well into the 70s.
It all sounds great --- until his next campaign stop is to a large immigrant group and he promises to give full Social Security checks to anyone from Mexico who would claim to have worked here 18 months -- legally or illegally.
Did I read that correctly NYT new service--enough said.
Considering Bush's biggest support is coming from the younger Generations he should be pushing this big time. This and tort reform should be his highest domestic priorities and he should be putting out commericals solely on these subjects.
Socialist analysts, that is...
Progress and reform have become the distinguishing features of the Republican Party. It is the Democrats that cling to the status quo and an ever burgeoning bureaucracy.
add please
Anyone who fails to recognize the issue of payroll taxes as one of the leading factors in "outsourcing" is oblivious to the realities of running a business these days.
"It all sounds great --- until his next campaign stop is to a large immigrant group and he promises to give full Social Security checks to anyone from Mexico who would claim to have worked here 18 months -- legally or illegally."
FITZ, I think illegals getting SS is a done deal. It is being implemented through the State Dept. and SS Administration. We couldn't expect illegals to qualify with the same amount of quarters worked as we do, could we?? Just wouldn't be PC!
I despise these type of comments that suggest that the the government(ss) is providing me something at a cost to them. Contrary to what some socialists would like to have, ss was designed as a means based program. This is partly to blame for why it is becoming insolvent, and why it must be privatized to protect from the vultures. I believe that the only acceptable Dimo reform plan would be to correct this capitalist mistake at a greater "COST" and loss in future benefits to those who currently contribute to ss.
That's why I wonder who Bush is trying to kid by talking about privatization again -- he pulled that one during the first campaign and it never happened. Then Vicente Fox comes along and demands the whole enchilada which includes social security checks for any one who gets over here and works a short while here --- and it's given.
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.