Posted on 02/05/2005 4:58:07 AM PST by bilhosty
Our country could profit from an honest debate about the future of Social Security. Judging from President Bush's State of the Union address, that is not the kind of debate we are about to have.
The president wants to use real but quite solvable problems in Social Security financing as an excuse for radical changes in the program. If Bush were to admit the simple fact that the shortfall in the Social Security trust fund is at most 0.7 percent of gross domestic product over the next 75 years, his alarmism would fall flat. So he has decided to exaggerate and mislead by way of frightening the American people, especially the young. It's bad politics, worse policy and a terrible shame
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
a CNN poll after the speech said 66% supported the plan. Since it was CNN, that tells me it was probably more like 80%..
Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
The President made a tactical mistake in the SS debate. He should have said the program was in great shape and the worst thing that you could do was have private accounts.
This would be a lot more effective if the Dems hadn't spent just as much time bemoaning the SS crisis. I mean, what was Al Gore's stupid lockbox all about, if there is no real problem?
I thought you knew the rules.
This change in the program is for the future and won't have any real effect until long after President Bush is out of office.
What do these left wing hacks like Dionne think the President is trying to do this for? Oil?
I can think of no reason to be against this reform. I think the American people will recognize the democrats oppose everything and stand for nothing.
E.J. Dionne and February 29th have a lot in common. One appears every four years . . . the other is right once every four years. This ain't that time for Dionne.
Only .7% of GDP. And Free Medical Care for everybody would "only" be about 400 billion to a trillion a year. Hey it only takes one little grain of sand to ruin an engine....
by Michael Tanner
Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute.
Vice President Al Gore has promised to define himself for the American people during the Democratic National Convention next week. Perhaps his position on Social Security reform would be a good place to start.
Gore's Republican opponent has made his position on Social Security explicitly clear. Governor Bush would allow younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Agree with him or disagree, at least you know where he stands.
But Al Gore has constantly reinvented himself on Social Security. For a time there was the "What, Me Worry?" Al, who disputed the very need for Social Security reform. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," he told supporters. Soon he became Al Gore, Man with a Plan. Gore proposed using the federal budget surplus to pay down the national debt and credit the Social Security Trust Fund with the interest saved by retiring the debt. This would keep Social Security solvent until at least 2050, he claimed.
The only problem was that when the Congressional Budget Office looked at the proposal, they declared that "merely changing the bookkeeping for the Social Security trust funds may only make us feel better at the expense of our kids."
The General Accounting Office was equally dismissive, stating that the proposal "does not represent a Social Security reform plan and does not come close to 'saving Social Security.'"
Then there was Anti-Investment Al, who denounced Bush's proposal as a "risky scheme," "casino economics" and "Wall Street roulette." Anti-Investment Al declared that private investment is inherently risky because the stock market could collapse any day. This hardly seemed like the Al Gore who said last year that "one of the single most important, salient facts that jumped out at everybody is that, over any 10-year period in American history, returns on equities are just significantly higher than these other returns," but for weeks Gore never missed a chance to denounce Governor Bush for relying on risky private markets.
That is, until he became Pro-Investment Al, who
proposed his own plan for encouraging workers to invest in private markets. Gore's plan is outside the Social Security system and relies heavily on government subsidies but still invests in the same markets he has recently denounced as inherently risky. In fact, Gore now points out that workers who invest even a few hundred dollars a year could accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars for their retirement.
"Al Gore Disease" seems to have even infected his new running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.). Lieberman once publicly supported a proposal for Social Security privatization very similar to the Bush proposal. In a 1998 interview,
Senator Lieberman told the Copley News Service, "I think in the end that individual control of part of the retirement/Social Security funds has to happen."
Now, however, Senator Lieberman opposes Social Security privatization. In late June, at Al Gore's request, he wrote an article titled "My Private Journey Away from Privatization." Interestingly, it was never distributed to newspapers and never published. It seems likely that, had Lieberman not been chosen as Gore's running mate, his private journey would have remained quite private.
Gore's discomfort is entirely understandable. It is no doubt difficult for him to pacify the far left wing of the Democratic Party, which demands no compromise on Social Security, while facing the simple reality of the program's coming failure. As he struggles with his decision, here are some facts that he should keep in mind:
Social Security is facing a severe financial shortfall. In just 15 years the program will begin running a deficit and, trust fund IOUs notwithstanding, will not be able to pay promised benefits without significant new taxes on young workers. Overall, Social Security is more than $21 trillion in debt. Moreover, even if Social Security could pay all its promised benefits, workers' return on their money is 1 percent or less, far below what they could receive from private investment. Finally, it is important to remember that workers have no legal right to their Social Security benefits and depend entirely on the whims of politicians for their retirement security. Moreover, because workers don't own their benefits, their retirement savings cannot be passed on to their heirs.
George W. Bush has come up with a plan that at least starts to address these problems. His proposal would start Social Security on the road to solvency, increase the rate of return that young workers receive and give workers a property right to a portion of their benefits. It may not be the perfect plan, but it represents a big step in the right direction.
We are still waiting for Al Gore's plan.
Sounds like Algore's still writing the opposition soundbytes. President Bush has not changed his vision of social security reform ONE IOTA since before being elected president the first time.
"[I]f you don't do anything [with Social Security], one of two things will happen. Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society ... of taking care of our generation's Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that most of us who are parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States."
--Bill Clinton 05/09/1998
I checked the lock boz. Gues what, it's empty! Go figure.
Great news from EJ. Therefore, we can let anyone who wants out of FORCED FRAUD leave and take THEIR MONEY with them. The rest of the mentally handicapped can stay in. Enough of them will die anyway before collecting dime 1, to insure the fund is solvent into infinity.
Like a good lib he says the problem is solvable but you have to wait to the end to see his solution.
If President Bush believed that the Social Security situation was as dire as he says it is, wouldn't he be willing to revisit a part -- hey, a smidgen -- of his own tax cut? If he is not willing to do that, could it be that he doesn't really believe that the Social Security problem is as bad as he says it is? Are we to cut Social Security, create these private accounts and go further into debt just to make the world safe for all of Bush's tax cuts?
Oh yes,raise taxes,give the gov.the money it is due in the libs world.
Social Security will still be able to pay between 70 and 80 percent of promised benefits -- which, because of wage indexing, would be higher in real terms than today's benefits.
Am I missing something or does this not constitute a cut in benefits?This would be regardless of privatizing a portion of the program.Lets put it the way the dems do,it would be a 20-30% cut in benefits.
His wage indexing statement, if I understand the point correctly,is absolute nonsense because inflation would equal the increase in benefits paid.
If the inflation rate is a modest 2%,based on the rule of 72 to calculate how long a dollar will double,the cost of living will double in 36 years,2041 just before the 20-30% reduction would kick in.
If I am not looking at this accuratly,please correct me.
Exactly WHY should the Social Security shortfall be related to gross domestic product?? It ain't GDP that is going to govern the payout--it is funds coming in from young workers. I guess the REAL Democrat goal is to make Social Security payments direct welfare funded from general tax revenues.
It's not about static numbers, but rates of growth over very long timeframes.
Anyway, what are the Dems' alternatives? Raise taxes, decrease benefits, raise the age, etc. And those are still really only temporary fixes to a growing problem.
Even better yet EJ. You socialists can have ALL of the money I have ever "contributed" since the 1960's. Just give me and my children the FREEDOM to opt out, therefore you won't have to pay us and your "problem" will be solved.
--William Jefferson Clinton, January 19, 1999
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.