Posted on 06/22/2005 12:30:57 AM PDT by Crackingham
With the acquiescence of their leaders, key House Republicans are drafting Social Security legislation stripped of President Bush's proposed personal accounts financed with payroll taxes and lacking provisions aimed at assuring long-term solvency. Instead, according to officials familiar with the details, the measure showcases a promise, designed to reassure seniors, that Social Security surplus funds will be held inviolate, available only to create individual accounts that differ sharply from Bush's approach.
Under current law, any Social Security payroll tax money not used to finance monthly benefits is in effect lent by Social Security to the Treasury, which uses it to finance other government programs. Government actuaries say the surplus is expected to vanish in 2017 when benefit payments exceed payroll taxes collected. In addition, the GOP bill "doesn't deal with solvency," according to another official, indicating it would avoid the difficult choices of curbs on benefits, higher taxes or changes in the retirement age needed to implement the president's call for long-term financial stability.
The officials who discussed the measure Tuesday did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were barred from disclosing details until a formal release Wednesday.
Four members of the House Ways and Means Committee arranged for an early afternoon news conference to discuss the measure. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., chairman of the panel, was not scheduled to join the others, Reps. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Sam Johnson of Texas, Clay Shaw or Florida and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. But Thomas was intimately involved in crafting the bill, and he and McCrery met privately on Tuesday with Speaker Dennis Hastert and other members of the leadership.
It was not clear in advance whether Thomas, Hastert or other leaders intended to formally endorse the bill, but one official said it was possible an outline would be presented before the news conference to the GOP rank and file. Either way, the emerging legislation marked the latest blow to Bush, who has said repeatedly he intended to spend the political capital gained in last fall's re-election to win fundamental changes in Social Security. The president has traveled to more than two dozen states since last winter trying to build support. Polls have shown his recommendations generate insufficient popularity to galvanize Republican lawmakers to action. Instead, with Democrats unified in opposition and threatening to use the issue in the 2006 elections, GOP leaders have been reluctant to act.
As recently as last week, Hastert told reporters there was no timetable for action on Social Security legislation. Other senior Republicans have said they hoped the Senate could act first. But Senate Republicans are stymied as well. Efforts to forge a consensus among GOP members in the Senate Finance Committee have proven unsuccessful. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who holds a pivotal vote, said Tuesday the issue was too important to be put on a partisan "fast track."
Bush got a firsthand glimpse of the difficulties confronting him during the day, when Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, informed him that he intended to introduce legislation omitting private investment accounts funded through Social Security payroll taxes. Bennett favors the accounts, but has long been considering dropping them from legislation in hopes of prompting Democrats to join in bipartisan talks on steps to shore up solvency.
"He indicated that I should go forward and do that," Bennett said of Bush. "And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included."
So we're reassuring seniors but doing nothing with private accounts or long-term solvency. Worry about it later ... I guess that's a strategy.
I guess they surrendered to the Dems and unions too.
Social Security Group Targets House Panel (target Republicans)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1427111/posts
Until now, Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) appeared to have more than enough votes to draft broad retirement security legislation that included some variation of Bush's efforts to create private accounts funded through Social Security taxes.
But Americans United to Protect Social Security -- a coalition of labor and liberal groups -- identified the committee as an opportunity to "administer the coup de grace" on Bush's approach, according to a PowerPoint presentation by the coalition.
The document identifies eight Republican targets to win over before Thomas completes work on the measure in committee. Labor and liberal activists plan to stage "summer fests," town meetings, district office vigils and leafleting to pressure Republican Reps. E. Clay Shaw Jr. and Mark Foley (Fla.), Nancy L. Johnson (Conn.), Chris Chocola (Ind.), Bob Beauprez (Colo.), Jim Nussle (Iowa), Phil English (Pa.) and Jim Ramstad (Minn.).
And there lies the problem. Congress's cash cow.
Of course, another strategy is to take the private accounts out of the Senate version, get the bill passed, then add them in the House/Senate conference bill, thus bypassing the Dems completely.
I would be careful about believing the AP until I knew more
Yep, they'll raise the retirement age, raise the cap on witholdings and we'll get nothing in return. No private accounts for our children. Every parent ought to be telling their kids that they will have to plan to finance their own retirements.
I'll never give money to the GOP again if they push this through.
Our "conservative" rulers are busy propping up another failed socialist program.
"Every parent ought to be telling their kids that they will have to plan to finance their own retirements."
Hell, if you're under the age of 40, you expected that. What sucks is that we'll be expected to do it while paying the crushing payroll taxes that will be necessary to keep the system limping along.
Fat chance.
Let's just call this "Take My Money, Uncle Sam - I'm Too Dumb to Manage It" bill. ;)
The rats won't let anyone have private accounts. What would they beat us old goats over the head with every election about the Republicans taking away their social scurity.
That only works if the overall bill isn't something that's likely to get blocked despite the conference committee modifications. A conference bill still has to go back to the House and Senate for a final vote.
I guess my protest vote in 2006, and 2008 will be for the libertarian party. Maybe hillary should be elected so that we can get the slide toward communism over and shock true "Americans", who are asleep at the "congressional voting switch", back to caring about who represents them.
I'm pretty sure Frist could round up the 50 votes necessary, with Cheney breaking the tie.
Frist needs 60 votes and there's no doubt that he cannot round them up for private accounts.
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.