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."
Thanks, Doc! I was just going to hunt for that statistic. A major part of the problem with the SS program is that they did not increase the retirement age as the life expectancy increased.
NO!
It is not HIS money to keep from ME.
What a RINO proposal.
How about we arbitrarily `tighten-up' the generous pension and health plans of retired representatives/senators?
Or decide we want to pay half what they're leeching from us now, but receive double, and at age 59. I don't know what it is that makes Congress think it can just change a defined benefit retirement entitlement for working men and women. They don't have any trouble doling it for any and every purpose other than wage-earners' retirement.
The Congress: the only company in the country that votes its own raises.
I know. It is amazing to me how people can support raising the retirement age...all I know is they must not do hard, manual labor, or love anyone who does.
Why doesn't Congress cut back on pay raises, wasteful spending, etc....to try to secure SS. Or better yet, do away with all their staffers and make them do their own work!
"I think Hagel is right on the money. As people live longer they should be expected to work longer. Raising the retirement age therefore makes good sense and is an effective way of keeping the process solvent."
If the SS system didn't exist, I could retire on my own at an earlier age. Then the true benefits of longer life coule be enjoyed!
Hey jla, Hagel thinks he knows what is best for (us). I would say he is thinking for (just-us) and not the money-grabbers(perk-interest-groups)of the house and senate. I think a much better solution would be to, cut his pay/retirement benefits by 70% as a gesture of good faith. NSNR
Chances of recieving Social Security before you die.. ???
Also it's own retirement plan, as well as that of government employees..
They have their own "private investment" plans, much like 401K plans...
Simply pick plan A, B, C...
Not good enough for the American People, though..
Of all the nerve! End medical research now! Down with healthy living!
"So when you look at the total universe of this,
Whatever that means.
I think that makes some sense to extend the age."
I think it makes more sense to end the pyramid scheme.
That'd be a good start. But he, and his peers, also have to work until they're 68. If they can't keep getting reelected up until then, hand them a mop and let them start at one end of the Capitol and work their way to the other end. Then turn, and repeat.
I'm continually amazed by the level of ignorance on this issue, even here on FR.
SS is NOT a 'Trust' fund...it is a pay-as-you-go transfer payment/welfare.
Politicians continue the charade, and naive Americans continue to eat it up.
First step towards solving the problem?
Means testing...
I have the same questions. I would like to see it that your 401K and/or private retirement funding is available after X years of starting it, not at some arbitrary age set by the gov't.
However, I will take the wildly unpopular view that the SS age SHOULD be raised. SS was not meant to be what people retired on, it was meant to take care of the elderly and infirmed, who had lived past life expectancy. If SS followed it original intentions, and not gov't supported retirement it has turned into, the SS age would currently be over 80.
"I have the same questions. I would like to see it that your 401K and/or private retirement funding is available after X years of starting it, not at some arbitrary age set by the gov't."
If we approve the Fairtax, then these questions would be moot! I would be willing to sacrifice all of my SS contributions to date (20 years worth), with no expectation of returns, if I would be allowed to opt out of the system. Of course, I don't have any expectations of a return anyway, so I guess that isn't very heroic!
It saddens me that the fools in DC want to simply stretch this massive thing out as much as possible. Age increases might fix one part of the problem, but you still have the same system and it will eventually require another age increase. I sure don't want to be working at 65...and I can't see myself working at 70...which is where these folks are going here.
The rest of us might have a problem with paying only those who failed to save. So my neighbor with his new cars and his boat gets a SS benefit but me with my 401K does not. Freaking perfect.
Means testing--Marx would be proud.
I'm with you!
Is Chuckie worried that moving the retirement age will effect HIM ... Not a chance.
I'm not against MEANS TESTING. Let those who are well off get back all they paid in plus interest, but that is it. As David Gold used to say: "Why send money to people who only use it for greens fees."
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.