Bush Backs Soc. Sec. Bill Without Accounts

Yahoo - AP ^ | Jun 21, 2005 | NEDRA PICKLER

[RobFromGa]

Bush Backs Soc. Sec. Bill Without Accounts

What a FALSE MISLEADING headline, President Bush doesn't back anything of the sort.

[SJackson]

Bennett bills aimed at keeping Social Security talks alive

Fighting on: He looks to slow the hike in benefits, and allow the creation of Bush's private accounts
> By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - Sen. Bob Bennett is looking to revive talks on Social Security reform, as President Bush's campaign for private accounts fails to take hold in the Congress or the country.

Bennett is planning to introduce two bills in order to separate the two pieces of the debate - one that seeks to keep Social Security solvent by slowing the hike in benefits paid out, and another that would allow the creation of personal investment accounts.

"Democrats and some Republicans say, 'We will not vote for anything that includes personal accounts,' and that seems to have slowed the whole thing down," Bennett said in an interview Thursday.

"My reaction is, that shouldn't slow the whole thing down and let's find out how serious people really are when they say, 'Yes, there really is a problem, but I don't like personal accounts,' " he said.

.....snip.....

The core of Bennett's proposal hinges on changing the way increases in Social Security payments are calculated year-to-year. They are now tied to wages, which rise faster than inflation.

That would continue to be the case for the poorest third of the population. For the wealthiest 1 percent, Bennett's plan would index the increases to the inflation rate, meaning a slower increase than now projected. Those in the middle would have payments based on an index that blends the wage levels and inflation rates.

His plan also includes "longevity indexing," meaning those who draw on the system for a long period of time would see their payments increasing at a slower rate later in life.

Bennett's other bill would allow the creation of personal investment accounts.

He says separating the two parts of the puzzle enables those who want to ensure Social Security's solvency to vote to do so, and also creates a vehicle for those supporting private accounts.

.....snip.....

[Txsleuth]

I am going to tell my 20 something children to start their own accounts with the approximate amount--possibly more, if they can afford it.

That way, if it never gets passed, they will not have to worry...I have lost more faith in any semblance of good legislation this year, than ever before, and I know it is because the dems are so BITTER about 2000!

[griswold3]

Yes, the squeekiest wheel gets the oil and the dems appear to be in charge. I think we let GW down. WE shoulda been the one with the signs at every event promoting the Ownership Society instead of the "Keep you hands off my Social Security" crowd.
GM is having difficulties because 160,000 union workers are supporting 1.1 million retirees...
Why can't those in the Socialists Revolution do math?

[surely_you_jest]

Me too. "Reform" is going to be to raise the rates, raise the earning cap, and lower the benefit for upper earners. Screw, screw, screw. Better to just leave it be and let the beast die.

Precisely.

[Pukin Dog]

Why post facts when FReepers seem intent on seeing the worst? Get with the program, Jackson! Down with Dubya, dammit!

[Iron Matron]

Welcome over to this thread. Did you tire of bashing Frist over on the Frist thread and decided to come over here and bash old W a bit?

You're welcome to your very strong pessimistic outlook, but it would wear much better on another site.<<<

Telling the truth as I see it is not bashing Bush. I voted for the man 4 times!!! (Texas Governor/President). What is the ols saying? If you dont vote, you have no right to complain? Well, I voted, now I'm complaining.

Bush does not seem to understand the word "Veto".

[SJackson]

GWB is looking to have a House version and a Senate version get passed and in committee the House version can win out!

See 42. Private accounts will be a separate bill, not a different "version", thus not an issue for negotiation.

[SJackson]

Why post facts when FReepers seem intent on seeing the worst? Get with the program, Jackson! Down with Dubya, dammit!

It may not be the worst, but the fact that GWB can't get a major piece of legislation which he's staked his reputation on through a 55-45 Senate isn't good. I'd like to say Frist has to go, but I'm not sure we've got a hard charger to replace him with.

[stylin19a]

unless the 06 elections are favaorable, GWB will be lame-ducked by Congress til the end.

[highball]

Me, too.

Don't think they will, though.

[Pukin Dog]

For those with short memories, I don't recall Bush losing a single fight with the Democrats yet. He may win ugly, but he wins every time.

[Irontank]

Basically it is a bill to disallow any ANY SS money being spent on ANYTHING except benefits

How would that work? If workers pay $200 billion more in FICA taxes this year than are paid out in benefits...what would the federal government do with that $200 billion?...put it in a vault?

[kabar]

Nedra Pickler is a Kerrybot. I am a little suspicious of her reporting given her political agenda. If it is true, Bush is pulling the rug out from under many GOP advocates in Congress. If we get another 1983 sellout, then Bush is really a fraud.

[babaloo]

Bush also told Frist to go back and get a vote on Bolton. It appears he is taking over the driver's seat again. Thank heavens.

[rattrap]

[Eagles Talon IV]

Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting what you have said. I really wonder about some of the people on this forum who claim to be Republicans. The idea here is to REALLY do something to save SS and not just get into a pissing contest with the Loony left. This can be done incrementally and a s you indicated can be worked out in committee either now if a bill is passed from the House or next session or the one after that. The people who will benefit from these private accounts, the 18-40 year old are broadly in favor of it and I think eventually it will come to pass and they will have those accounts. In any case this now puts the Libs squarely on the spot and they now MUST come up with some kind of a plan.

Wanna bet it will be tax increases?

[surely_you_jest]

I really wonder about some of the people on this forum who claim to be Republicans.

This is a Conservative forum. Which may, or may not, coincide with Republican Party interests.

[SJackson]

For those with short memories, I don't recall Bush losing a single fight with the Democrats yet. He may win ugly, but he wins every time.

In the first term I didn't particularly like the education bill. Or the farm bill. Or spending in general. I'd comment on his immigration policy, but I can't really find it.

You're right though. He's been very careful in picking his battles. A virtue with a closely divided Senate, 55-45, I'm not so sure. We'll see how things go on the first Supreme Court nomination.

[Eagles Talon IV]

If the Rep do not have a filibuster proof majority then exactly HOW does he get his SS reform bill passed? It is obvious the libs will stonewall this thing without a shred of remorse. Someone said that doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result each time is a sign of insanity. This loosely fits that analogy.