Posted on 03/08/2005 8:39:25 PM PST by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON - The heart of President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan for Social Security (news - web sites), allowing younger workers to create personal accounts in exchange for a lower guaranteed government benefit, is among the least popular elements with the public, Republican pollsters told House GOP leaders Tuesday.
The pollsters also stressed the political stakes involved in pursuing Bush's plan to overhaul the Depression-era program, according to a memo circulated at a session in the Capitol.
Older voters consider a candidate's views on Social Security to be "as important, or in some cases, more important than issues like the war, health care and education," they wrote.
Reporting on the results of 14 focus groups held last month in scattered locations, the memo said Bush has been successful in raising awareness of Social Security's financial situation. It also credited the administration with having done a "very good job" of emphasizing that current and near retirees would not be affected by his plan.
At the same time, the public "knows little or nothing about the details and specifics" of Bush's proposal for individual accounts, "and a good bit of what they think they know is incorrect," it said.
The focus groups, as well as earlier nationwide polling, were paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House GOP. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the memo.
Unlike a poll that may survey hundreds of people, a focus group involves a moderator leading a discussion. The participants are chosen for different characteristics such as age, gender and voting behavior.
According to the memo, Americans of all age groups "were most resistant to proposals that involved cutting or reducing benefits or raising Social Security payroll taxes.
"When forced to choose a course of action, a majority ... chose raising the age of early retirement, and there was also support for further reducing starting benefits for early retirement."
Despite the general resistance to higher taxes, there is very strong support for exposing higher levels of income to the existing levy, the pollsters wrote.
Asked what they liked least, 31 percent of the participants in the sessions mentioned that the government would be responsible for keeping track of the accounts. Another 24 percent "least liked the fact that workers would be required to accept a lower traditional benefit in return for participation," a key element of Bush's plan.
The findings surfaced on the eve of a House Ways and Means Committee hearing into Social Security's finances and as the administration pushes ahead with an aggressive campaign to raise public support for changes.
At the same time, some Republicans have begun to step forward with variations on Bush's theme, in hopes of beginning a process that can coax Democrats into negotiations.
Congressional Democrats have so far maintained nearly unanimous opposition to the president's plan, accusing Bush of seeking to privatize the program and pay for it by cutting benefits.
The president asked Congress in his State of the Union address to overhaul the program, saying he wanted a bill that both made it permanently solvent and included personal accounts.
Under the president's approach, Social Security would remain unchanged for retirees and workers age 55 and over.
Younger workers would have the option of investing a portion of their payroll taxes on their own and would receive a lower guaranteed government benefit when they retire. Supporters of the plan argue that earnings on the investments would make up the difference.
Republican officials briefed by White House aides have said even younger Americans who decide not to establish a private account would receive a lower government guaranteed benefit.
So much for the greatest generation. Even though they won't be affected, the old geezers will still prevent reform to the system until it is totally bankrupt for us younger folks.
Read the book called "Coming Generational Storm". It is recently published and still available. Excellent reference book. It has a section that talks about if no reforms are implemented and what the individual needs to do financially to prepare for and survive the collapse of Social Security. I look at Social Security like being forced to live in a town with a bad public school system. In order to save the future of my children, I must make the lifestyle changes to I can pay my property taxes and still have enough money for my childrens' safer private school education. We still have time to prepare for a financial life boat for our old age. If my fellow citizens want to rely on Social Security, then let them live in poverty.
Nah, let's put blame where it belongs. On the Senate and House Republicans. If this doesn't go through, as judges have not gone through, burden lies squarely on their shoulders.
They will reap the consequences of inaction if they keep this up. I'm not too reactive but I have a limit. I will not reward consetive terms of status quo politicians when we are promised change.
Which proposal are you talking about?
Yup, it's the demographics for sure.....
Started out with 40+ workers for every retiree. Soon we'll be at 2 workers for every retiree. But worse is the fact that those 2 workers may be low wage earners. Look at our current crop of school kids. Here in CA, a large percentage of our future workers drop out or graduate with degrees they really didn't deserve.
We need more people, but not just third world immigrants. I'd like to think there would be a couple of rocket scientists or engineers supporting me when I retire but, I'll probably end up with a fast food worker and a gardner supporting me in retirement.
The Bush proposal, such as it is.
I am still not sure what the actual Bush proposition is, but I am a big proponent of personal accounts. Long term investing has always earned a higher rate of return than social security and the prospect of a pot of gold at the end will make people more risk-averse that would make people follow a less risky life-style. What I would really like to see is the end of social security, but that is not on the table. Short of that, this is the best proposition, in my opinion.
The Bush plan really does nothing to address the actuarial deficit. It merely allows folks under 50 to borrow from their standard SS benefits at 3% over the inflation rate, and buy stocks. I would never do that - ever.
Yeah, and he can't bring democracy to the Middle East, either.
Bush has much better odds of that. Just because Bush is weak on one thing, does not mean he is weak on another. The transitive principle has its limits.
I was being sarcastic, ace.
You need to get a return of more than 3% over inflation to come out ahead vis a vis sticking with the present plan, since what you draw out into private accounts offsets what you get from standard SS. If inflation is 3%, that means a 6% return annualized, with a rather rapid accretion and erosion above and below that number.
IC. Maggie's humor was always really quite subtle.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all good get what pubic employees do in retirement benefits? I'm in favor of that. Let's make the French pay for it.
You have repeated this several times. You are incorrect.
Nope alas, I am not. I wish I were. But whatever. There is no magic panacia. It will just be blood and tears, and mere foreplay vis an vis the medical subsidy implosion.
"Whatever"? Suggest you outgrow Valley Girl mode.
Yes, you are incorrect. Go forth and research the proposal. Yours is exactly the same error the Washington Post made in its reporting for which the White House demanded — and got — a correction.
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.