Posted on 03/15/2005 5:35:55 PM PST by CHARLITE
On his official website, Senator Lindsey Graham proclaims that he “never strays from the conservative reform agenda.” Well, now he has—in a dramatic way, and in a way that should infuriate every Republican who has ever voted for him.
On March 9, the Washington Post reported that Graham had claimed during a meeting with writers and editors from the Post that personal retirement accounts as a means of transforming Social Security are a “sideshow.”
Republicans “made a strategic mistake” Graham said, in focusing on personal accounts. And Graham incriminates others who have been pushing personal accounts by saying “it’s [personal accounts] always been a side show, but we sold it as the main event . . . . we’re off in a ditch over a sideshow.”
This is a betrayal of mind-boggling proportions to his party, his President, and the movement he claims to spearhead in the Senate.
For 25 years, conservative and free-market think tanks and advocacy organizations have been making the case for Social Security reform, saying that it is wrong for the government to force workers to contribute to a system of forced retirement savings and then to give them a lousy return. We’ve told them that the Social Security system was in trouble, and that personal retirement accounts were the solution.
Poll results have shown that these arguments make sense to the American people. But the most important poll is on election day, and on the last several election days Republicans have run and won on these arguments.
Unfortunately, as soon as Social Security reform became a political possibility, Senator Graham started looking at reform from the government’s perspective, rather than from the perspective of those who are forced to pay 12.4% of their earnings into a system that renders them a return below the rate of inflation. Instead of focusing on giving taxpayers a better deal, Graham advocates cutting benefits, raising payroll taxes, and forcing retirees to work longer and pay into a failing system even longer.
It’s no wonder that the public is confused, and is losing its enthusiasm for reform. So-called reformers like Graham have pulled a giant bait-and-switch. He inherited 25 years of work in support of personal accounts, but is now ditching the accounts in favor of an approach that gives government, not taxpayers, a better deal.
It is precisely this kind of green-eyeshade, bean-counting, pain-inflicting approach that convinced our current President’s father to break his no new taxes pledge. Graham and his ilk are leading our current President in the same direction, pressuring him to “set aside” personal accounts, abandon his “no payroll tax increase” pledge, and cut benefits to retirees.
Let’s reset for a minute: The problem with Social Security is not that benefits are too high, or that payroll taxes are too low. Social Security does not promise too much. Social Security delivers too little.
The point of personal retirement accounts has always been to give American workers a much better return on their forced savings contributions, fixing Social Security’s liability problem and creating a new pool of investment capital in the process. The point has never been to simply restore the system to solvency. That’s easy to do with tax increases and benefit cuts. Senator Graham gets no points for imagination or creativity for proposing what Democrats have been proposing for decades.
But is there any proposal for reforming Social Security that lives up to 20 years of rhetoric, and that would appeal sufficiently to voters? A proposal that, for instance, neither cuts benefits nor raises taxes? A solution that guarantees every single American worker at least as much as they would have received under the existing Social Security system, but delivers much more?
There is such a proposal. The Social Security Administration itself scored last year’s Ryan-Sununu legislation as completely eliminating the trust fund liability and giving workers a better return then they get from the current system. The Social Security Chief Actuary has also scored three other proposals that entirely solve Social Security’s problems through personal accounts alone, without benefit cuts or tax increases.
Senator Graham is either unfamiliar with or willingly ignorant of this important work done by the Social Security Administration, paid for with taxpayer dollars. He should spend a few hours studying it, or spend his time working on something else.
Tom Giovanetti is president of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), a national policy organization with offices in Washington, DC and Dallas, Texas.
He is getting a big pulpit for his spewing--he was on Brit Hume's show tonight talking about the "sideshow".
Between he and Lincoln Chafee, and Norm Coleman, I've had just about enough of the Republicans that want to help the dems obstruct everything that Bush tries to do...
While obviously better than a Democrat (especially one along the lines of old Hollings that just left last year) he is simply to absorbed with himself and probably a RINO to boot (when it comes to a handful of important issues).
Would love to see him defeated in the GOP Primary when he is up next -
Looks like amazing stategery to me, considering the 100 to zip vote in the senate today on touching the third rail. He's a stalking horse.
RINOS SUCK BUMP!!
How come it's always the democrats who are upset when a person isn't acting like a republican.
Besides, I saw Lindsay on Special Report tonight and he was very clear and very articulate about Social Security. He also commented that the back and forth with filibusters in the senate needs to be resolved.
I hope that's a clue that they intend to get rid of it VERY SOON.
if all we end up with from this "reform" package, is simply the same formula of higher taxes and a higher retirement age to fix social security - the republicans will lose congress and the white house in 2006/2008.
He needs a primary in 08.
that is why I am totally against any more "reform''''
I am 51 and my husband is 53 this year, neither of us has a pension, my husbands was conveniently sucked from him by his corrupt company, and we need SS at a decent age....
we have paid in a combination of close to 70 yrs worth of SS and the govt will pay us back one way or another.....
Chafee is and always has been a schlep and he is G O N E in 06. I dont know much about the other two but i thought Lindsey was conservative. what did Coleman do to be a RINO (note i am asking because i have not heard much not because i am defending these guys)
very few non-unionzed people in private industry have a pension anymore. they have 401Ks, and these "cash balance" accounts which provide next to nothing. and private sector companies are getting rid of retiree medical coverage as fast as they can. traditional defined benefit pensions are something that only government/municipal workers get, or unionized private sector workers negotiate for and retain through collective bargaining.
All I can say is, don't be shortsighted on the calculations for this. of course, there is no way your contributions to SS are going to be "zeroed out" given the number of years you have put in. but if you plan to work for another 12-15 years, don't underestimate the amount you could accumulate in a private SS account in that time - it might be worth accepting the lower SS payment to get it. Right now, all new money you are pouring into SS every year is getting about 1% rate of return, and it will soon be negative.
But indeed, this is a perfect example of how the white house is blowing this. they are not explaining it well, they don't have a detailed plan showing what people could save, how different age groups will be affected based on how many more years they will work, etc.
I will have to get back with you on previous votes of Coleman, I know there were some surprising ones, but I will have to research, and I have to leave for a while---
I do know that he voted against drilling in ANWR today, which keeps us more dependent on OPEC's oil---THAT is bad enough for one Day....LOL
yeah i really really wanted ANWR drilled anything to at least attempt to help us with this energy crunch
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.