Posted on 03/10/2005 10:05:19 AM PST by stan_sipple
Sen. Robert Bennett, the chief deputy majority whip and one of the wisest Republican heads in Washington, has quietly entered the Social Security maelstrom with a thoughtful compromise that puts his party at a crossroads. The GOP faces this choice: Pass a bill that is a pallid version of the original proposal, or concede defeat and fight out the battle in the 2006 campaign.
Democrats have definitively ruled out any form of personal accounts. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, by nature a dealmaker, is under intense pressure from his caucus not even to discuss the Bush proposal. With Sen. John Kerry accusing Reid of being too soft, the new leader rejected any negotiation. Democrats, reeling from a succession of election defeats, want to humiliate Bush at the start of his second term. In the Senate, Paul Begala (my co-host on CNN's ''Crossfire'') is described as threatening a jihad against any Democrat who dares negotiate.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
If we are going to cut benefits, lets do it by switching from wage indexing to price indexing. I can live with that.
Sen Bennett suggests price indexing in full article.
The Democrats are discussing a new bill titled "Dislike Bill". It is designed to prosecute those who don't quite qualify for "hate crimes" but mostly those who disagree with their platform.
Bait and switch. There is no good answer for propping up a fairy tale.
I guess I can still live with that. Social security will gradually shrink as a percentage of the GDP.
"So much for moderate Democrats trying to find common ground"
They are just remembering the lessons of Hillarycare in 1994. The polls are on their side (through the misinformation campaigns of the AARP and the MSM), and they're just going to sit on their hands at this point.
Naw....
I think I'll wait and see what Bush's SS plan is.
It turns SS into more of a welfare like system.
i.e. Personal accountability?
That seems a tad over the line for a TV personality to be personally immersed in political battles on the Hill.
at least the insane proposal to erase the $90k income salary cap appears to be off the table
that rule applies only to GOP backed pundits, eg Armstrong Williams
On FOX news there was an ad placed for people to call their congressmen and senators to urge them to reform Social Security. They are trying to back away from it. The phone # given was 202-225-3121. I called both of my Senators and left name and told them to move forward. I need to call the Congressmen too. I am in a red state so I don't know how helpful it will be but any of you blue staters might do some good bombarding your politicians.
Tying the Social Security benefit adjustments to a price index rather than a wage index is putting a band aid on an arterial-severing cut. Some of the bleeding may be staunched, but the underlying hemorrhage continues.
All these IOUs that are collecting dust in a file drawer at the US Treasury, are essentially scrap paper. Just try to collect sometime in the future on any of them.
Plans for voluntary contributions for one's own retirement already exist. But all these exist IN ADDITION TO Social Security, not as a package pegged to Social Security, or carved out of Social Security.
"Will the president buy it? The guess on Capitol Hill is that it will look better than nothing, in the eyes of the White House. But there is a temptation among many Republicans to match Democratic intransigence and go to the public in the midterm election."
I would not be surprised if President Bush "trumaned" the Dems in the '06 election for their "do-nothing" stand on Social Security.
"They are just remembering the lessons of Hillarycare in 1994. The polls are on their side (through the misinformation campaigns of the AARP and the MSM), and they're just going to sit on their hands at this point."
Actually, this is their mistake and another underestimation on their part. One major difference exists between Hillarycare and SS reform of today. The scope of government would have been greatly increased under Hillary care, while the span of personal ownership will be increased slightly under SS reform.
Fundamentally, they are on the wrong side again and the American people understand this. No matter what the "polls" say.
I disagree. I see two issues: 1. I don't want the government maintaining a trust with my money. That was how the program was originally set up in the 1930s. Why wouldn't they raid that trust again and replace that money with worthless paper IOUs? Let's get the government completely out of our retirement planning ASAP. 2. The fastest way to do that is for the Government to stop making promises of future benefits to current workers. Price-indexing does that. Ideally we'd have an "opt-out" system in which people can forgoe the payroll tax but then never get SS benefits. But failing that option, this is the best way to get the Government away from our money.
Here's a good article that advocates repealing, not reforming social security:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0797e.asp
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.