Posted on 03/07/2005 9:24:05 AM PST by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - A leading Republican senator is proposing to raise the Social Security retirement age from 67 to 68, while Democrats maintain their opposition to the president's plan to overhaul the retirement program with private investment accounts.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's plan would raise the age that retirees could receive full benefits, beginning in 2023. "We are living longer," Hagel said Sunday on CBS'"Face the Nation.""So when you look at the total universe of this, I think that makes some sense to extend the age."
But some leading Democrats said they could not support Hagel's plan because he would pay for private accounts by borrowing and increasing the nation's deficit. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., told ABC's "This Week" that would be "a great threat to seniors" because it would raise interest rates.
President Bush plans to travel across the country this week as part of his 60-day push to persuade a skeptical public to support personal retirement accounts. The president's plan would allow workers under age 55 to divert up to 4 percentage points of their Social Security taxes into private stock and bond investment accounts in exchange for lower guaranteed future benefits.
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said that while polls show most Americans don't like the idea, most of the opposition is coming from people over 55 who won't be affected by it. He said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush will try to reassure those older Americans that their benefits won't change.
Bartlett said the White House wants to work with Democrats, but Democrats are vowing to fight unless the president is willing to change his plan to divert Social Security funds into private accounts.
"If the president takes privatization off, if he makes a commitment to the future of Social Security, we're ready to sit down on a bipartisan basis and put everything on the table," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on NBC's "Meet the Press.""That's the only way to start a good-faith negotiation."
Democrats also object to the president's call for personal accounts because they would not make Social Security solvent. Treasury Secretary John Snow, appearing on ABC, maintained the personal accounts still must be part of the solution.
"They don't in and of themselves bring those lines together," he said. "But we'll never get a fair and equitable solution to the Social Security problem unless personal accounts are an integral part of the solution."
Hagel's plan, which he said is the first Social Security reform bill being introduced in the Senate this year, would allow workers 45 and younger to keep their guaranteed Social Security account, but set up a voluntary program of personal accounts that could supplement their retirement income.
"The president has not laid down a specific plan as to how he's going to get us to solvency," Hagel said. "I do that. It doesn't mean mine's best, but I do it."
Bartlett indicated the president may consider raising the amount of income that is taxed to fund Social Security above the current $90,000 per person. "He says the only thing that's off the table is raising the rate" at which income is taxed, Bartlett said on CNN's "Late Edition."
Also on Sunday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Fox that because of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's support of personal accounts, some people "have seriously questioned the independence of the Fed." She declined to say whether she would describe Greenspan as a "political hack," as Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did last week.
Other Democrats distanced themselves from Reid's comment. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said on CNN that Greenspan is "sometimes very mistaken," but he is an "above-average human." Durbin said he has disagreements with Greenspan, but that calling him a political hack "may have been slightly too strong."
Let's say you and I start a new job on the same day, at the same wage, and we are the same age. For twenty years, you get your dollar (for argument sake only) taken away in SS taxes. Every week, I get that same amount taken out also, but I decide to also put an extra dollar in my 401k. You buy a lottery ticket.
Twenty years later we both retire (you never did win the lottery), and the government says to me, "Boy you did such a great job saving, but poor EternalVigilance is broke because his lottery tickets never panned out. Therefore, you really don't need SS as much as EternalVigilance does, sorry, too bad, so sad".
I totally understand your argument about SS being pay as you go, but I refuse to accept that you and I doing the exact same job for twenty years should receive different benefits.
Not really.
If you've been such an 'ant' all your life, the pittance you receive from SS won't affect your standard of living that much.
But I guarantee you that the large percentage taken from the average wageearner with kids' check via Income Tax II (aka FICA) makes a huge difference every month.
If the situation was in reality what you describe, and matched with the propaganda foisted on the American public for the last couple generation, I would agree with you.
But its a faulty premise y'all are starting from, unfortunately.
And this is true of almost every other welfare program in existence. Should every family get food stamps because some do? You're right, it's not fair. But as I said before, it's a necessary evil, and it's a lesser evil than forcing tomorrow's workers to pay astronomical taxes.
Yes, but are you saying that you shouldn't take a job where you can get one, just because it pays a pension after so many years ? What if you can stay at the job you love for 40 years ? Should you leave it after 10 years or so just because you know in advance you will get thrown out of the job after 40 years and your employment prospects are dimished at age 60 or 70 ?
"If you've been such an 'ant' all your life, the pittance you receive from SS won't affect your standard of living that much.
But I guarantee you that the large percentage taken from the average wageearner with kids' check via Income Tax II (aka FICA) makes a huge difference every month."
Let's see...it seems i've heard this somewhere before...AH YES, here it is, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."
You, and Eternal Vigilance are correct as you said: All the money you sent in for SS was spent as soon as it arrived!
Yup. The number of people around here who are willing to opine on how to "fix" Social Security, without having any idea as to the basics of how the program works, is astonishing.
But SS has always been sold as if it were our money set aside for us. I know that isn't true, but, for example, have you received those printouts from SS showing how much was withheld and advising how much you will receive when you retire, based upon those contributions? Even here at FR it is hard to blame us for swallowing what the govt feeds us... or at least blaming govt for selling this junk to us.....
I see you have your Communist Manifesto handy, where you can easily get at it.
SS is in perfect harmony with that document...
Or, in the case of some here, of throwing bricks at those who simply point out how the system really works...
;-)
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. Now you know what our generation faced our entire working lives. And we damn sure paid plenty.
I appreciate your honesty, but this is essentially the affirmative action argument: group A wronged me, so I'm going to use the government to exact compensation from group B.
Yep. And it is especially bad when you consider the fact that 'Group B' in your analogy is our posterity...our children and grandchildren!
I never said we were wronged. But if you say so, i guess i'll agree with you.
Me and tabby just don't want it done to us twice in the same lifetime.
Exactly. And I thought we were supposed to support the rights of the unborn...
Yeah...
You make a good point, although I note that those printouts we receive from the Social Security Administration specifically note that the calculation of future benefits is predicated on current law, and that Congress can change the benefits formula, or raise the age at which a person receives benefits, or otherwise change or eliminate the system entirely. Despite this, people believe what they want to believe about Social Security, even people that might not otherwise trust what the federal government said about anything else. It's a fascinating phenomenon, really.
But you're right: it's understandable that people are confused, given the sales job that's been down on Social Security over the years. I'm more than 20 years away from reaching "retirement age," so I haven't, until recent months, even cared to think about the workings of the Social Security system. In terms of planning for my retirement, I've been much more interested in such things as how my 401(k)'s been doing. As a consequence, it's only recently that I started to dig into how the Social Security program really works. To the extent I'd given the issue much thought before then, most of my preconceptions were spectacularly wrong.
I suppose one point I'd make is, no matter how much we may have been taken in by the carnival barkers in Congress, among the political parties, and those employed by such groups as the AARP, if we're going to have a sensible discussion about what to do to fix the problem, those that are engaged in the discussion need to purge from their minds their hopeful misconceptions about the Social Security program and try to come to grips with what it actually is. Otherwise, we're just going to be talking in circles at each other, as this thread tends to demonstrate, I think.
I think this thread also tends to demonstrate the ugly inter-generational animosities that will be generated by any serious Social Security debate.
In all due respect, Yellowdoghunter, this is irrelevant. Whether one wields a pickax, a pen, a mouse or a scalpel, no government, especially ours, should be able to dictate when it's citizens retire.
And if they weren't so spineless about SS in previous elections it wouldn't be such a hard sell to correct it now.
Barry Goldwater proposed making SS voluntary back in 1964 but of course the Democrats, along with many Republicans, were quick to see that that idea never bear fruit.
Ronald Reagan again proposed it in his Presidential run in 1976, and the Ford administration led the way in demonizing him and the proposal.
No doubt it won't take too long for some of the welfare bums here on this thread to convince themselves that they're entitled to their free Viagra.
Would you know how much "a massive cut in benefits" actually is?
Yea , lets all work untill we drop dead..Thats even a better idea. You cant change the rules once the game starts , never mind 25 years into it as in my case. I guess they want to keep moving the goal post the closer we get.
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.