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."
Hey! Dem politicians have been telling them all their lives that SS would always be there to 'help them get over the hump!"
You make some good points. For myself, I'm quite willing to entertain raising the retirement age or adjusting the cola. But what i'm not willing to entertain is turning it into a welfare program via means testing. And it IS NOT NOW a welfare program, no matter who's got the dictionary.
It's economic bondage.
(Nice to see you posting on this subject with some fire and brimstone, EV!)
That won't fix anything. First of all, the money collected would be put into the general fund and spent on other things. And the way SS works, the more money that people put in, the more they can take out. It would be like trying to fix a leaky bucket by making the leak even bigger than before.
You said: I think this thread also tends to demonstrate the ugly inter-generational animosities that will be generated by any serious Social Security debate.
Sadly, I agree. That being said, there is some merit to the ant/grasshopper analogy. Nothing makes me seethe more than knowing that someone is "getting over" by malingering, only to be rewarded for his lack of industry.
For your information, i'm no welfare bum. You should live so long to pay the taxes i've paid in my lifetime, including FICA.
I'll thank you to not refer to SS recipients as "welfare bums."
The Plan was sold to us as 'our account'. We all know it isn't, but that's not the point.
Looking at my SS Statement, I've contributed right at $100k to the Plan .
Give me my 'contributions' back plus some small interest and I'll opt out.
One prerequesite to receiving benefits should be CITIZENSHIP.
Umm...one small correction, Vinnie. They aint "contributions," they're a seizure of assets. I think that's one point we all can agree upon.
Absolutely.
Is Life Expectancy Overestimated?
Study: Formula That Calculates Life Expectancy Inaccurately Accounts for Improvements in Health Care
By Sid Kirchheimer
WebMD Medical News
The whole purpose of raising the retirement age is so more people DIE before they see a nickle - especially those who do manual labor and as such, will be keeling over at 67 1/2 from heart attacks left and right in factories and construction sites across the country.
After all you can't have a successful PONZI SCHEME if you're paying out more than you're taking in.
And I don't have the figure handy but I have a feeling that when SS was enacted in the 1930's that the Life Expectancy wasn't 65.
The combined life expectancy for a newborn in 1935 was 61.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
I understand they aren't contributions, that is why I '' the word. They were forced from me.
I have wanted to be out of the system my entire working life.
"As David Gold used to say: 'Why send money to people who only use it for greens fees.'"
Because that was the deal.
Let's take this one step further.
Force workers to retire later, keeping older workers (who need more expensive health care) on corporate payrolls and health plans.
This is a screw you both ways - they are exempt from fixing Medicare/Medicaid, and our premiums will keep going up because now everyone in the corporation is paying for the premiums of these older workers.
someone paying 12.4% should not have his money stolen by someone who paid only 4%1
why not deduct from the recipient the amount he would have been taxed if he paid 12.4%.
SHOULD THE CURRENT RECIPIENTS GET MORE THAN THEY PUT IN?
Fine. But if there are neato new medical technologies that can extend your life to 130, I sure as hell shouldn't have to pay for them.
"If you want to live forever, do it on your own dime." (Copyright XM 2004-2005)
it would be nice to see the rich get richer and to hear the dems complain...
In other words, if he does their bidding they'll talk to him and let him call it bi-partisan. These d@mn democrats are nothing more than a very hazardous obstruction on the road to America's future.
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.