Posted on 04/09/2005 8:34:40 AM PDT by FairOpinion
Senate Republicans are considering temporarily sidetracking President Bush's plan for personal investment accounts under Social Security, hoping Democrats will then join compromise talks on legislation to restore the program's solvency.
Several GOP officials said Republican leaders discussed the possibility privately this week, recognizing that unified Democratic opposition to the accounts has stalled efforts to advance Bush's top domestic priority.
At the same time, these officials said GOP leaders were wary of leaving the impression that they intend to abandon the president's proposal to allow younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes independently.
Any shift in tactics has the potential to embolden Democratic critics who say Bush's proposal would privatize Social Security and lead to benefit cuts and a large increase in the national debt.
At the same time, it could undercut the current 60-day campaign by the White House to build public support for the president's approach.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
That's why brother Gore didn't get very far with it. Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central made a few bucks with it, though.
I don't associated "lock-box" with a promise from me to me to pay me some day. That sound more like a New Year's resolution.
Good. Because it is not a self-promise. The idea, never developed, implied Congress would somehow magically keep its fingers out of the lock box which holds the tax money collected from employers and their employees.
But the original statement stands. Unless there is a major change in the process, there is no reform - there's just a change in tax or spending rates.
Actually, that is not the original statement, which was: So if private investments are removed, where's the reform?
Unless I mistake what you mean by process, which I might, we seem to be in substantial agreement. Any change, with or without private accounts, which achieves solvency reforms SS. Reform with private accounts, depending on how they are created and administered, would be better.
The pubbies have no backbone. If they did, W would have his judges by now. All of them. But after 4 years, these clowns are still terrified of the NY Times.
I don't make that presumption. From what I've read, I'm too young to benefit from Social Security and too stinking old to be able to accumulate much in a privatized account. The government has stolen my money for 34 years and the only thing I'm going to get is screwed.
"The government has stolen my money for 34 years and the only thing I'm going to get is screwed."
ONLY if they don't reform Social Security.
It stands to reason that they would implement it in a way, that those in the middle, like yourself wouldn't get hurt either.
As I said, it's only reasonable that they wouldn't just give nothing to those a few years under 55, but have a graduated scale.
Reason and Washington don't equate.
This is just boston globe BS.
if anything the fact teh boston globe is propagandizing the ss plan means then know nothing.
Those that talk know nothing about the subject, those that don't talk know.
I should clarify, they do have meaning, and you are correct they are not IOU's. They are WE OWE THEMS. They have worth only in the sense that my credit card balances have worth. There is nothing other than my sense of honor and duty that compels me to pay them.
There is nothing that requires my children to pay for my Social Security retirement other than their sense of duty and honor. Sucks for them that the "No Private Accounts" crowd wants to see to it that they can't afford me.
The Federal Goverment has no liquid assets, all it has are debt instruments (emphasis on the word DEBT). To pay off Social Security obligations will require borrowing of money from the private sector. The only way a lockbox would have any real meaning would be if it was invested in the form of private sector assets (sounds like personal accounts to me).
Do you have any idea how rich you could retire if the money was invested in something safe that actually generates wealth, like Ginnie Mae's? If our fellow citizens ever come to realize the truth, they will no doubt be upset, but the days of George Washington and the signers of the Declaration of Independence are long over. We haven't got the sense of national will that would result in anything other than the usual inner city riots.
Besides, there will be plenty of folks reassuring all of us that the Emperor isn't merely naked, his raiment is of such surpassing worth that the Commoners simply can't see them.
That is a fair analogy, I think.
With respect to the federal government and social security, your personal honor and your sense of duty, and the personal honor and duty of your children, translates into the full faith and credit of the United States. That, looping back, is nothing more than a promise by the federal government to pay its debts.
Somehow, many posters to these discussions seem to believe with respect to Social Security, debt backed by the full faith and credit of the United States is a trivial matter. Because the interest bearing treasury notes representing the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund are non-negotiable, they are somehow not really assets and are not really worth anything. They do not represent, so the objection goes, a real obligation in the same way that China or Korea or Japan (substitute Visa and Mastercard) expect to be repaid for the loans they have made to the United States.
Which leads into . . .
The Federal Goverment has no liquid assets, all it has are debt instruments (emphasis on the word DEBT). To pay off Social Security obligations will require borrowing of money from the private sector. The only way a lockbox would have any real meaning would be if it was invested in the form of private sector assets (sounds like personal accounts to me).
Again, a fair statement and one with which I truly, truly agree.
Social Security reform is in trouble first because people have a natural resistance to change. The devil you know is better than the devil lurking in the shadows.
People know that as employers and employees they paid tax money to the federal government to underwrite the Social Security programs. They have a difficult time understanding how so many generations could pay into a system only to be told now that there is only debt and there is no real obligation to pay the debt. They are not buying it. Nor should they.
They did not pay their FICA taxes to fund the general liabilities of the federal government.
Second, Social Security Reform is in trouble because the solution is vague and implies people will be expected to pay more and get less in the short term. To the extent people understand private accounts at all, they remember the nightly news showing the plight of retirees going back to work, because the stock market took a dip and the value of their portfolios, and consequently their income, has taken a nose dive to the bottom of an near-empty pool. Long term averages don't matter a fig when you're badly hurt in the short term. Social Security payouts may not be much, but they are the same every month.
Long ago Congress should have moved to guarantee Social Security's solvency. Private sector investment is the first solution coming to my mind. But, that does not necessarily mean private accounts. What it might have meant was the Social Security Trust Fund became an institutional investor, just like banks, universities, and mutual funds. Now, that would have driven the investment bankers nuts!
Do you have any idea how rich you could retire if the money was invested in something safe that actually generates wealth, like Ginnie Mae's? . . . We haven't got the sense of national will that would result in anything other than the usual inner city riots.
I think we do have the will.
What we do not have is a Congress and a President with the guts to tell the people, "We misappropriated your taxes. We spent the money. Now, we need to right our wrong. Here's how we need to do it . . ." But, private accounts cannot be the only item on the agenda. They must make the whole package understandable to the ordinary taxpayer.
Why do we even bother to have two parties if the Republicans won't even do what their constituants voted them in for?
They have noodles for spines & straw in their brains. It's irritating! They've gotta get out more often and pay attention.
The "reform" will be the same as in 1983 when the retirement age was raised to 67, the FICA tax increased, and the cap tied to COLA. This was supposed to be a 75 year fix. All Congress wants to do is to make SS a cash cow so they can continue to raid it for revenue.
Real reform would be personal accounts giving people some ownership over their retirement funds. Both parties in Congress are afraid on what that would do to their power and influence. Partial privatization of SS will eventually lead to total privatization. Today, 80% of Americans pay more in FICA tax than income tax.
Thanks for the link. Lots of good information on that page.
Most startling . . . at first blush . . . are the references to multiple SS Trust Funds. I'm sure I should be and will be startled by more, but those references immediately caught my attention.
All Congress wants to do is to make SS a cash cow so they can continue to raid it for revenue.
Something not much talked about. Indeed, how will Congress make up the shortfall should it be forbidden to misappropriate SS funds?
Borrow real money with real Treasury Bonds and/or cut spending and benefits. Starting in 2008, the SS surplus starts declining and we go into the red in 2018. The baby boomers will start retiring in a few years. History shows that about 2/3 of SS retirees elect to take the money at age 62, so it wouldn't suprise me if the timetable is moved up a little bit.
The 1983 changes marked the biggest cut in SS benfits and increase in taxes in history, but it barely made a ripple publically because both parties colluded to arrive at the "solution." No politician has the guts to say that they have been milking this Ponzi scheme for all it is worth. They will take the coward's way out again and kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with. In the meantime, expect more benefit cuts, e.g., raise the early and full retirement ages, increase the cap more than just COLA increases, increase the FICA tax, change the COLA calculation formula, etc.
The greatest fraud ever FORCED on free people. The road to serfdom and socialist peonage is built from the hard work of dead Americans.
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.