Posted on 02/12/2005 11:17:00 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO — Don't believe the hype, says U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
Social Security is not "in crisis," "almost bankrupt" or "collapsing" as the Bush Administration claims, Boxer, D-Calif., told several dozen senior citizens and reporters gathered Friday at the San Francisco Senior Center on Beach Street.
Conservative estimates say the system can keep paying out full benefits for 38 more years if nothing at all is done, she noted — that means workers now 37 or older would be fully funded until age 75. But nobody's suggesting not doing anything at all, she added.
"Yes, there is a challenge and we have to face it," she said — lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap from its current
$90,000 level could give the system 75 percent more money than it needs for the next 75 years.
Boxer, who has rushed to the forefront of the Bush administration's liberal opposition by challenging Ohio's electoral votes and digging into Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during confirmation hearings, lit into the president once again Friday for fear-mongering.
This supposedly optimistic president suddenly has become a "prophet of pessimism," she said, in order to achieve a goal conservatives have nursed for a long time. "It's about one thing and one thing only: destroying Social Security."
She showed the crowd a Jan. 6 White House talking-points memo that said the strategy will be "to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg."
She also quoted the memo as saying that "(f)or the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win." An examination of the memo shows that sentence finishes, "and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals."
And Boxer noted similarities between the current Bush administration strategy and a 1983 journal article, written by scholars at the conservative Heritage Foundation, entitled "Achieving a Leninist Strategy."
The article refers not to communism itself but to public information and political tactics, and says changing a system like Social Security "is contingent upon both a movement's ability to create a focused political coalition and upon its success in isolating and weakening its opponents."
The senator said GOP efforts to portray Social Security as being "in crisis," while having Wall Street interests that would benefit from personal retirement accounts spend money up front to persuade the public to accept them, gibe with the 1983 article.
Boxer told the seniors Friday not to believe Bush's State of the Union claim that their benefits will be untouched. Transitioning to personal retirement accounts will cost the government $2 trillion over a decade, and current beneficiaries are sure to suffer for it.
"Don't breathe a sigh of relief, don't pull the covers over your head — get in this fight, with me," she urged, telling seniors to spread the word and sign her online petition.
In the audience Friday was Berkeley's Michael Roosevelt, whose grandfather — President Franklin D. Roosevelt — created Social Security. He said he agrees with Boxer, and not as a matter of preserving his family's legacy.
"I'm here because I'm an American worker and I've got three kids," said Roosevelt, 58. The attorney called Social Security "one of the most important threads in our social fabric."
and said Bush's so-called reform plan is "an effort to get the camel's nose under the tent ... ultimately designed to do away with Social Security entirely."
Setting up the straw men for the old folks, eh Babs?
Senator Dumb as a Box of Rockser.
I have a pretty strong hunch Boxer has plenty of stock market/mutual funds. If their so risky, why would she engage in such a venture?
Not to mention that her occupation opts out of the Social Security Plan. Odd how there is no crisis when she has no personal stake in the benefit.
No crisis for seniors means no paycheck for wage earners. I'm sure Boxer's just fine and dandy with that.
So using her logic, let's say she is right and SS won't be in trouble for 37 years. Does anyone really think that is a long time? The dims try to make it sound that way just to have something to argue. Lame!
Senator Boxer Shorts is a lying, traitorous, hate-America scumbagette, who needs to be proven a liar publicly, and have all credibillity destroyed, so she is run off in disgrace, as Dasshole was.
The 'Fund' may not depleted for another 38 years but that fact (If it is one) is testament to the enormous sums the Gov't has taken from the paychecks of Americans for all these years.
Despite the poor rate of return, the declining contributor to beneficiary ratio and the incredible mismanagement typical of the lib's Big Gov't schemes there are funds, in the forms of loans to the Gov't, to meet outflows until that time. IMO That is not only a 'Crisis' it is a crime.
And those that live longer will get what? Or is this her proposed retirement age?
I turn 36 on the 22nd of this month. Seriesly, it doesn't seem like a hugh amount of time.
Someone upthread had it pegged--if it's not a crisis to her, it's not a crisis. What a beeyotch. (and, unfortunately, from my state)
Now that it's clear that the Dem talking points are that Social Security is just fine, there's no problem, nothing to see here, etc. (WV's Sen. JD Rockefeller IV and Rep. Alan B. Mollohan were quoted in this a.m.'s Wheeling newspaper as saying just that), it is essential we dig up all the quotes from the past ten years of the Dems' "sky is falling" comments about SS, including but not limited to Clintoon's "Save Social Security now!" Let's go googling, and start writing letters to our local papers asking why the Dems keep changing their minds about SS.
Translation: We Democrats have an idea that will more than fix this problem. We just love it. It's called raising taxes.
I hope to see her get close to Hitlery
IT'S A WRONG MOVE FOR DEMOCRATS.
What ever became of the party that "made the world safe for democracy", demanded quality in education, supported the exploration of space, respected family, prayer, and good citizenship, and most of all took the US Constitution seriously?
THE FOOL DEMOCRATS GAVE ALL THOSE VALUES TO THE REPUBLICANS - AND THREW THEIR SUPPORT BEHIND LABOR, CIVIL RIGHTS AND GIVE-AWAY GOVERNMENT. WHAT FOOLS!!!!
She is correct. There is no problem for Senior Citizens now just for their children and grandchildren in the future. Senator Boxer, if social security is so wonderful than why aren't you and your fellow senators paying into it? Why aren't government employees paying into it? Why can't I, tax payer citizen, have a choice also? Or is choice only good when killing the unborn? These are viable questions Senator. The difference between a democrat and republican is simple, brains....
Before or after she got her 10 quarters (or 40 credits) in!
How many of congress will double dip!
Let the loud mouths give up any clain to SS - no matter how many quarters they have put in!!! Money where their mouth is.
What they are really concerned about is their cash cow!
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.