Posted on 02/24/2005 5:49:17 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves
Pelosi calls privatization plan a 'rip-off'
She talks to seniors about Social Security plan at meeting in S.F.
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Democratic Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, launching what she vowed will be an aggressive effort against President Bush's Social Security privatization, told cheering supporters in San Francisco on Wednesday that the plan is a costly "diversionary tactic'' by the administration and a blatant "attempt to divide the generations" on the values of a crucial social program.
"It's absolutely stunning, the rip-off that it is,'' Pelosi told a town hall meeting on Social Security, which drew overflow crowds of hundreds to the San Francisco Library. The minority leader said her appearance was part of a nationwide Democratic effort this week to hold at least 100 meetings and "raise the drumbeat'' against the Bush plan.
"We will not be part of increasing the deficit ... or being unfair to women and minorities,'' who rely overwhelmingly on social security in their senior years, Pelosi said.
The minority leader's lively 90-minute public discussion -- in an audience packed with concerned seniors -- comes on the heels of the president's own cross-country campaign on the issue to push more private investment in the program. In what is likely to be a recurring theme of Democratic attack, Pelosi repeatedly characterized the Bush plan as "a tax on our children'' -- and one that would severely endanger the poor, the disabled and especially minorities and female seniors who rely in the millions on the program as a safety net.
She suggested that Bush has been misrepresenting to the voters a "crisis" in Social Security, calling it "a crisis which he said in our private meetings didn't exist.''
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The minority leader -- appearing to echo comments by then first lady Hillary Clinton about a "vast right-wing conspiracy'' -- said the privatization plan is being promoted largely by powerful and well-funded conservative think tanks and media organizations.
"The media is practically wholly owned by the administration ... and the consolidation of the media has done more to harm our democracy,'' she said to applause.
One comment she made that didn't make this article - she insisted that Social Security has a "1.7 trillon dollar trust fund" that throws off income every year, and thus there is no crisis. I suppose even the Chronicle thought that comment was too loony to publish. ;)
Remember When Democrats Advocated Protecting Social Security?
by Chris Field
Posted Feb 13, 2005
Did you know there once was a time when Democrats admitted they believed Social Security needed protection and reform? Of course, it's quite significant that, of the occasions they took to trumpet the need to fix the program, they were the loudest when they used Social Security reform to justify their strident opposition to President Bush's first tax relief package in the first few months of 2001.
Juxtaposing the Democratic Party's lackadaisical position on Social Security reform today (remember, they actually booed the President of the United States on this issue during the State of the Union) with what they were saying during the budget fights of 2001, when President Bush's tax relief package was being debated, reveals quite a contrast.
Here, then, are a few excerpts from Democrats during the debates, speeches, and tirades on the Senate floor in 2001. I pulled all quotes from the Congressional Record (CR).
WARNING: This list of quotes is awfully long, but they're all worth having in your arsenal.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (W.V.):
What about Social Security and Medicare reform? When the baby-boom generation begins to retire over the next ten years, financial pressure on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will rise rapidly as payroll tax income falls short of what is needed to pay benefits. Both programs are expected to have expenditures in excess of receipts in 2016. Where will the federal government find the money to finance these benefits? In the absence of budget surpluses for the rest of the government's operations, policymakers would have three options: raise other taxes, curtail other spending, or borrow money from the financial markets. If we go along with these massive tax cuts, how will we honor our pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare? [Congressional Record s3674, April 6, 2001]
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (CONN.):
Because of the excessive Republican tax cut and the inadequate size of this contingency fund, Congress may be forced to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds or face the prospect of a return to budget deficits. The GOP budget imposes deep cuts on important programs. The Budget Resolution would cut non-defense discretionary spending by about $8 to $9 billion or two percent below the level needed to keep pace with what was provided last year, adjusted for inflation. Funding for environmental protection, disaster assistance, veterans' medical care, Community Oriented Policing (COPS) and the Army Corps of Engineers would be particularly hard hit.
[. . .]If we are successful in building on our prosperity, we will be able to guarantee the future of Social Security and Medicare. Everyone knows that strengthening Medicare will require more resources, not less. Yet the President's tax cut reaches into the Medicare surplus, leaving scant hope for modernization, or a new, meaningful prescription drug benefit, as the President promised. While today's workers will rely more and more on personal savings for retirement, for millions of Americans, Social Security is still the foundation of their old-age support. We must meet our obligations to our retirees, but we must also seek reforms that will make their retirements more secure. [Congressional Record s3675-3677, April 6, 2001]
SEN. PAT LEAHY (VT.):
Mr. President, I must oppose this budget because it is an irresponsible gamble with our economic future.
This resolution sets aside trillions of projected budget surpluses for tax cuts proposed by President Bush that are steeply tilted to the wealthy. It pays for the Bush tax plan at the expense of needed investments in Social Security, Medicare, education, law enforcement and the environment.
[. . .] After years of hard choices, we have balanced the budget and started building surpluses. Now we must make responsible choices for the future. Our top four priorities should be paying off the national debt, passing a fair and responsible tax cut, saving Social Security, and creating a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. [Congressional Record s3681-3682, April 6, 2001]
SEN. CARL LEVIN (MICH.):
In approaching our Federal budget, I believe we should divide the projected surplus among four budget goals: giving the American people fair and fiscally responsible tax relief, paying down the debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and responsibly investing in key priorities such as education, prescription drug coverage for seniors, environmental protection and national defense.
[. . .] Understanding that these projections are uncertain, here's what I think should be done with surplus dollars that actually materialize:
First, I would protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We have to take prudent steps today to ensure that as 77 million baby boomers retire over the next 30 years, the costs of their Social Security and Medicare won't explode the Federal budget. In just 15 years, the Social Security and Medicare programs will require transfers from the "non-Social Security and non-Medicare" side of the Federal budget in order to pay benefits. Without reform, these transfers will get larger and larger, placing enormous pressure on the federal budget--pressure that would be compounded if President Bush's proposed tax cuts were enacted. Thus I think it is imperative to set aside the surpluses that are currently accumulating in these trust funds and not use them for new spending or tax cuts--as the President's budget proposes to do.
[. . .] As budget debate continues in the weeks ahead, Congress will be making some important decisions regarding our country's future. We have the ability to provide targeted tax relief, fund some important national priorities and protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations, while dedicating significant resources to paying down the national debt. To achieve all of these goals, we need to act wisely today so that we strengthen our economy in the long run, not weaken it once again by risking a large Federal deficit with an excessive tax cut benefiting mostly those who need it least. [Congressional Record s3683-3684, April 6, 2001]
SEN. TED KENNEDY (MASS.):
Mr. President, at the heart of the budget dispute between Republicans and Democrats is the size of President Bush's proposed tax cut. Republicans claim the surplus is so large that we can have it all, that their massive tax cut will not interfere with efforts to address the country's most serious concerns.
[. . .] The impact of the Republican tax cut on the Federal Government's ability to address the most pressing concerns of the American people would be devastating. It is too large to fit into any responsible budget. The available surplus over the next ten years is, at most, $2.7 trillion. Whatever we do over the next decade to address this country's unmet needs must be paid for from that amount. Whatever we want to do to financially strengthen Social Security and Medicare for future retirees must be funded from that amount.
[. . .] The Democratic budget plan stands in stark contrast to the Republican plan. Budgets are a reflection of our real values, and these two budgets clearly demonstrate how different the values of the two parties are. In political speeches, it is easy to be all things to all people. But the budget we vote for shows who we really are and what we really stand for. Our budget is geared to the needs of working families. It will provide them with tax relief, but it will also address their education and health care needs. And it will protect Social Security and Medicare, on which they depend for secure retirement.
There are four criteria by which we should evaluate a budget plan: 1. is it a fiscally responsible, balanced program? 2. does it protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations?, 3. does it adequately address America's urgent national needs?, and 4. does it distribute the benefits of the surplus fairly amongst all Americans? By each yardstick, the Republican budget fails to measure up. The Democratic budget is a far sounder blueprint for building America's future.
[. . .] By consuming $2.5 trillion of the $2.7 trillion available surplus on tax cuts, the Republican budget would leave virtually nothing over the next ten years: to strengthen Social Security and Medicare before the baby boomers retire. . . .
[. . .] The Social Security and Medicare surpluses are comprised of payroll taxes that workers deposit with the Government to pay for their future Social Security and Medicare benefits. Just because the Government does not pay all those dollars out this year does not make us free to spend them. Over the next ten years, Social Security will take in $2.5 trillion more dollars than it will pay out and Medicare will take in $400 billion more dollars than it will pay out. But every penny of this will be needed to provide Social Security and Medicare benefits when the baby boomers retire. [Congressional Record s3687 - 3689, April 6, 2001]
SEN. PAUL SARBANES (MD.):
The Democrats have proposed a responsible budget alternative which balances the need for debt reduction, targeted tax cuts, and investment in critical national needs. The Democratic alternative fully protects the Social Security and Medicare surpluses to ensure that we will be able to meet our obligations to America's seniors, now and in the future. [Congressional Record s3691, April 6, 2001]
SEN. HARRY REID (NEV.):
We need to be fiscally responsible and protect social security, provide a prescription drug benefit, fund education, ensure a strong and stable military, continue to pay down the debt, and to ensure the funding is available for our Nation's veterans. [Congressional Record s3695, April 6, 2001]
SEN. DICK DURBIN (ILL.):
I also want to make certain we protect Social Security and Medicare. If as an outcome of this debate we end up jeopardizing Social Security or Medicare, then we have not met our moral and social obligation to the millions of Americans who have paid into these systems and depend on them to survive.
I believe the good news about the surplus should be realistic news. We should understand that surpluses are not guaranteed. We ought to make certain that any tax cut we are talking about is not at the expense of Social Security and Medicare. We should focus the tax cuts on working families to make sure they are the beneficiaries so that they have the funds they need to make their lives easier. That should be the bottom line in this debate.
As I said at the outset, Democrats and Republicans alike believe these tax cuts are going to happen. I believe it is a good thing to do. Let us pay down this national debt. Let us provide a tax cut for the families who need it. Let's make sure we protect Social Security and Medicare in the process. [Congressional Record s839, January 31, 2001]
SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (MICH.):
We believe fiscal responsibility, keeping the budget balanced, paying down the debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare are critical and should not be compromised for any other actions no matter how well intended. We have a train going down the track. My fear is there will be no budget trigger to stop the train before it goes off the track. That is common sense.
[. . .] I believe common sense would dictate we pay down the debt, we protect Medicare and Social Security , we give a major tax cut focused on our middle-income families and small businesses and family farmers, and that we can do that and also be able to continue investments to keep the economy going. [Congressional Record s5684, May 25, 2001]
SEN. KENT CONRAD (N.D.):
We are offering an alternative that we think is more cautious, more conservative, and more balanced. We take the forecast surplus of $5.6 trillion, and then we reserve every penny of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for the purposes intended. That leaves us with $2.7 trillion remaining.
We separate that amount into equal thirds: A third for a tax cut; a third for the high-priority domestic needs of a prescription drug benefit, strengthening our national defense, improving education, and funding agriculture; and, with the final third, we set that money aside for strengthening Social Security and dealing with our long-term debt because just as we have surpluses now in this 10-year period, we know that when the baby boomers start to retire these surpluses turn to massive deficits.
[. . .] We also say we ought to reduce the size of his tax cut to set aside money to strengthen Social Security for the long term. [Congressional Record s3264-3269, April 2, 2001]
SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (MD.):
The democratic plan is balanced, fiscally prudent, and leaves resources so we can continue to pay down our debt, and make the balloon payments coming due on Social Security and Medicare. [Congressional Record s5502, May 23, 2001]
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (W.V.):
The facts are stark: Social Security payments will exceed income in 2015, and Medicare payments exceed income in 2010. We will be forced to tap into the Social Security Trust Fund principal in 2025 and the Medicare Trust Fund principal in 2017. In 2037, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted, and the Medicare Trust fund will be exhausted even earlier, in 2025. I believe this tax bill jeopardizes the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. These programs are fundamental for our seniors, and we have an obligation to ensure that both the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are protected before enacting massive tax cuts. [Congressional Record s5505, May 23, 2001]
SEN. JOHN KERRY (MASS.):
We are about to enact a $1.35 trillion tax cut and at the same time, we have done nothing to deal with fundamental issues resulting from mandatory spending and the retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
[. . .] Social Security's trustees reported in March that Social Security's tax income will fall short of Social Security's benefit payments beginning in 2016. Medicare's tax income will fall short of Medicare spending the same year. Social Security and Medicare's problems are related to the aging of the labor force. In the not-to-distant future, there will be too few workers in the workforce to maintain Social Security and Medicare as pay-as-you-go programs. These are not small problems.
In the case of Social Security, Congress will have to either reduce Social Security benefits, raise Social Security taxes, or find a third alternative.
[. . .] The same issues apply to Medicare. The Congressional budget resolution sets aside $300 billion in a Medicare Reserve Fund. However, that $300 billion is needed just to finance a decent prescription drug benefit. In addition, there will be substantial costs associated with reforming Medicare. This year's Trustees' Report showed that health care costs per capita will rise. But as I have demonstrated, the tax cut would place Medicare surpluses in jeopardy.
Dealing with Social Security and Medicare's financial problems sooner rather than later minimizes the pain for beneficiaries and workers by allowing the government to address transitional costs before the problem reaches the breaking point.
Congress should be acting in a fiscally responsible way by addressing Social Security and Medicare's long-term problems while we have the opportunity, while the Federal government is operating under surpluses and not deficits. [Congressional Record s5508-5509, May 23, 2001]
The whole social security ponzi scheme is an "absolutely stunning rip-off" to anyone 40 years or younger...
Sen. Reid's Unsupportable Calculator
02/17/05 05:03 PM “Nevada's Senator Harry Reid unveiled an online Social Security Calculator so Nevadans can see how President Bush's Privatization Plan would affect their retirement security.”
—Feb. 17, 2005 press release from Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV
Sen. Reid, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), and other foes of personal retirement accounts today posted an on-line calculator developed by the far-left Center for Budget Policy and Priorities. (The calculator is available on several websites now, including democrats.gov.) Those planning to use this calculator should keep in mind a few of the unsupportable assumptions built into it:
It assumes personal accounts will deliver CBO’s “risk-adjusted” rate of return of 3% not counting administrative costs—less than half of the average return of 7% on equities delivered over the past 75 years. For its “expected” analysis, however, CBO assumes a rate of return of 4.9%, even after accounting for administration costs.[1] This calculator assumes that the average investor will be able to equal, at best, no more than the return on U.S. Treasury Bonds.
It assumes all workers will start collecting full benefits at age 65—even though the age at which one qualifies for full Social Security benefits will reach 67 by 2022. This incorrect assumption allows the calculator to overstate projected Social Security benefits by as much as two years and underestimate personal account earnings by the same margin.
It assumes that, with a change in benefits indexing, benefits would drop by 50 percent. But the Social Security Administration estimates that a similar change would offset benefits by 45.9% for a worker retiring in 2075.[2] And adding in the expected value of a personal account, total benefits would be 115% of the benefits that Social Security can actually afford to pay and over 140% of real benefits today.
It assumes that today’s “promised benefits” can actually be paid by Social Security. Under current law, benefits will get cut automatically when the Social Security Trust Fund runs dry. Social Security’s Trustees say this will happen in 2042 and that benefits will be cut 27%.
Sen. Reid is quoted as saying "Nevadans should have all the facts on the President's plan," and indeed they should. But they should also get all the facts—and all the assumptions—pertaining to the Minority Leader's curious calculator.
"Pelosi Calls Privatization Plan 'Exposing a Rip-off'
"and she heaalped"
I have a hard time understanding how they assume they can make political hay with this argument. How can anything be a "rip-off" (oh, isn't she just so hip?) if participation in the privitization is optional?
A gem from Rush:
Democrats Gave Clinton Standing Ovation
for Suggesting Private Social Security Accounts
February 3, 2005
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
I'm stunned, folks. I'm sitting here and as you know I have many monitors where I can watch the mainstream media in action while this program unfolds and CNN just dragged out some video of a previous State of the Union speech by Der Schlick Meister, William Jefferson Clinton. I didn't catch the year of this, but I'll bet you it had to be '98 because '98 was his year of save Social Security first. Anyway, they had tape of Bill Clinton suggesting private accounts for Social Security. He was talking about the surplus that they had, this $5 billion surplus that was projected for the next ten years and he wanted to take 60% of that and put it into Social Security to save Social Security first. Because, see, when a Democrat was in the White House back in '98 there was a crisis in Social Security. Now, nothing's been done since then, but there's no crisis in Social Security now. All the Democrats gave him a standing O when he mentioned this private account business in his State of the Union speech back -- I'm guessing it has to be on or around 1998. So, you know, fast forward seven years and you find out that the same Democrats who were applauding the concept of private accounts are now doing everything they can to defeat them today.
And something crystallized as I'm watching this. You know, Clinton talked about a lot of things that needed to get done, terrorism, but didn't do diddly-squat on any of them. And these problems continue to fester and get worse. And so here's Bush, and he arrives on the scene and starts tackling these things, with the express purpose of getting something done on it all, and, man, the Democrats just put up those obstructionist roadblocks, and it's doing nothing but harming themselves. You know, I've often said the Democrats, you're hard-pressed when you listen to them speak during a campaign or any other time to hear them say what they're for. And I think one of the reasons is they don't know what they're for. They look at life, they look at politics through the prism of the sixties and the seventies. That's how they see everything. In some cases they see America through the prism of the thirties where everybody is in a soup line and about ready to commit suicide on Wall Street, but other than that, it's hard for them to say what they're for because they may not know what they're for other than government getting big and never ending the process of governmental getting bigger. But I think they're becoming more and more known for what they're against, which is everything. They are against everything. They do not have a position that is positive on anything. They don't have their own solutions to the complaints that they have. They have a litany of complaints but no solutions. All they do is oppose, oppose, oppose, and so they're more known for what they're against than what it is they're for. And it is that realization, I think, coupled with the perception that more and more people are also coming to that conclusion that's causing them to just literally rot away or implode. They're in the process of committing suicide. That response last night to the State of the Union speech by Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi was just absolutely devastating to them. It didn't advance anything, and it didn't show them as even existing in this current time.
I was also struck by something, I started to talk about this before the vice president called at 12:30 Eastern time, 9:30 for those of you on the west coast is when he called. The State of the Union speech last night for the president was not a laundry list, it was lofty, ambitious goals and on every one of them the Democrats are in opposition. They're in opposition to success of the war on terror, they're opposed to what we're doing in Iraq, they are opposed to Social Security reform. They are opposed to Bush's judges. They're going to be opposed to the president's budget. They're opposed to everything. And at some point in the near future, their opposition is going to be obvious to one and all. This speech or the positions the president is taking are a win-win, because the Democrats are never going to be able to say "we helped" when these solutions come to pass and when they work. And if the Democrats on some of these issues succeed in blocking the president's agenda, the failure to fix these problems will someday show up and they will be known as the ones who stood in the way of the solution. So they've once again politically maneuvered themselves into a no-win situation with whatever position, any position that they are taking.
END TRANSCRIPT
Nancy, Nancy, Permanent Whinority Leader Nancy, the real rip-off was your last facelift that will not allow you to close your eyes.
Their "trust fund" consists of IOU's that the Treasury will ask taxpayers (i.e. you and me) to make good on.
Socialist Security is the greatest FORCED FRAUD ever perpetrated on FREE people. It is economic abortion of Americans. How does the enemy within get away with this BS?
bump
The lines are being drawn now for the next great social revolution.......
So many people now own their homes and invest in the stock market....
This revolution might resemble the Boston Tea Party and after.
SENATE DEMOCRATS MAKE MOCKERY OF SOCIAL SECURITY HEARING
Dorgan And Reid Use Handpicked Witnesses At Taxpayer Funded Hearing To Claim There is No Social Security Crisis
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Dorgan and the Democrats' 'hearings' today deserve an 'A' for stagecraft and an 'F' for honesty. The partisan Democrat Senators starring in this taxpayer-funded farce shamefully sacrificed their credibility by contradicting their previous warnings of the danger facing Social Security if action is not taken. While Sen. Dorgan and the Democrats are playing political games, President Bush and Republicans in Congress are working to preserve Social Security for future generations.”
-Brian Jones, RNC Communications Director
DEMOCRAT POLICY COMMITTEE CHAIR BYRON DORGAN (D-ND) THOUGHT
“FIXING SOCIAL SECURITY” WAS AN “URGENT PRIORITY” IN THE 1990s
Dorgan: “Fixing Social Security Is An Urgent Priority. It Ought To Be At The Top Of Both Parties’ Agendas.” (Sen. Byron Dorgan Op-Ed, “Fixing Social Security Must Top Both Parties’ Agendas,” Roll Call, 12/6/99)
Dorgan: “Without Congressional Action Soon, There Is The Very Real Threat That Social Security Benefits Could Be Reduced, With Millions Of Our Nation’s Elderly Tossed Back Into Poverty As A Result.” (Sen. Byron Dorgan Op-Ed, “Fixing Social Security Must Top Both Parties’ Agendas,” Roll Call, 12/6/99)
Dorgan: “The Potential Crisis Should Be Viewed As An Enormous Success, Because It Means That We Are Living Longer And Healthier Lives.” (Betty Mills, Op-Ed, “What Would You Do About Social Security?” Bismarck Tribune, 8/5/98)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV) SUPPORTED STEPS TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY IN 1990s
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 2/14/99)
COMMITTEE MEMBER SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-MD) SAID “WE MUST SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY” IN 2000
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD): “Congress Cannot Afford To Miss This Opportunity To Respond To Seniors And Their Families. We Must Save Social Security, Strengthen And Protect Medicare And Address America’s Long-Term Care Crisis.” (Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, “Senator Mikulski And Congressman Ben Cardin Visit Catherine O’Malley Senior Center,” Press Release, 2/28/00)
DEMOCRAT WITNESS KENNETH APFEL SUPPORTED STRENGTHENING SOCIAL SECURITY IN 1990s
In Late 1990s, Former Clinton SSA Commissioner Kenneth Apfel Thought Financial Challenges Facing Social Security Were Real. “Vice President Al Gore repeated the Clinton administration’s goals of protecting the solvency of Social Security and Medicare before 300 area residents Friday but did not hint at a preferred solution. … At his side was Social Security Commissioner Kenneth Apfel, who said the financial challenges to Social Security were distant but real. ‘The worst thing we can do is wait year after year without taking action,’ Apfel said.” (C. David Kotok, “Fix Social Security, Gore Says,” Omaha World Herald, 1/9/99)
In Late 1990s, Apfel Thought It Would Be “Morally Wrong” Not To Strengthen Social Security. “Speaking recently in Fort Lauderdale, Social Security Commissioner Kenneth Apfel agreed that reform is a necessary, if not an easy, process. ‘No option that the president or anybody else comes up with is going to be perfect,’ Apfel said. ‘But it’s clear we have to do something. Kicking the can down the road for our kids to deal with would be morally wrong - and make the problem a whole lot worse.’” (Scott Bernard Nelson, “Clinton Plan Reaction Mixed,” The Tampa Tribune, 1/20/99)
DEMOCRAT WITNESS JAMES ROOSEVELT, JR., SUPPORTED STRENGTHENING SOCIAL SECURITY IN 1990s
In 1999, Roosevelt Testified Before House Ways & Means Committee About “Long-Range Social Security Solvency Problem Facing Our Country.” “Three weeks ago, in his State of the Union address, President Clinton proposed historic steps to ensure the solvency of Social Security. When putting together his framework for a solution to the long-range Social Security solvency problem facing our country, President Clinton wanted to increase national savings to reduce burdens on future generations …” (James Roosevelt, Jr., Ways And Means Committee, U.S. House, Testimony, 2/11/99)
SSA WITNESSES TURN OUT TO BE UNION LEADERS
Democrat Witness Debbie Fredericksen Is Vice President Of The National Council Of Social Security Administration Field Operations Locals Affiliated With AFL-CIO. (Lynn Anderson, “SSA Union Not Happy With Talks On Contract,” The Baltimore Sun, 5/27/04)
In 2002, Fredericksen Was President Of AFGE (The American Federation Of Government Employees) Local 3129 In Minnesota And Superior, Wisconsin. (AFGE Newsletter, http://www.home.earthlink.net/~afge3129/Newsletters/Feb02/FEB02.PDF, Accessed, Via Google Cache, 1/28/05)
Democrat Witness Steve Kofahl Has Testified Before Congress On Behalf Of American Federation Of Government Employees (AFGE) Before. (“In The News” Federal News Service, 8/3/95)
Kofahl Gave $240 To Washington Democrat Party In 2004 And $312 To American Federation Of Government Employees In 2004. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/28/05)
Two words used too frequently in recent years - and here they are : "Absolutely" and "stunning".
"San Fran Nan" is a very confused. Back in 1998, all the Dems thought SS needed to be fixed 'cause "Bubba" was president. But now it's different. In the past seven years, apparently, all that worry has been for naught.
Viva Bush!
Speaking of rip off-one more face lift is liable to cause her face to rip and fall off.
The woman babbles udder nonsense,...the old gal is definately no rocket scientist.
Yes it is, and the people that are getting "Ripped-Off" are the politicians that were planning to squander that revenue on their pet projects. So it is correct for Pelosi to say the plan is a rip off.
FDR Supported Social Security Reform!
Bil Bennett brought up a great quote this morning:
“Message to Congress on Social Security on Jan. 17, 1935:
“In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions.
Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.
Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”
Ahem.
When even the Leading Liberal Democrat of all time supports Social Security reform, why would anyone on the Left now claim it is a bad idea?
Ah. Yes.
Because he suggested it.
But the ponzi scheme known as Social Security isn't ? Please.
If it's such a "rip-off" how does she justify her own and other congressmen's access to such a plan?
Hey Pelosi! How much of MY retirement have you stolen from the SS trust fund to fund your pork-barrel projects?
Rip off indeed.
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.