Posted on 04/28/2005 7:14:14 PM PDT by crushkerry
On Social Security the President was fabulous. We have been saying for months that the President needed to highlight the VOLUNTARY nature of personal accounts, and he did so tonight. You could tell the word "voluntary" will be preceding "personal savings account" in the future. He also did a great job of allaying the fears of those who may be uneasy about investing in the market and highlighting the fact that you could invest in savings bonds. If people stuck around to the end they heard a great justification for PRA's when one spouse dies before retiring - the ability to pass it on rather than getting nothing from the SS system.
As to the "new" proposal of means testing future benefits it was a good political move. The Democrats may now have to face questions about why they're standing in the way of something that will assure the poor an income above the poverty level from social security. As political ju-jitsu goes it was pretty good. However, you can bet the Dems will be screaming about "cuts" in social security and saying "What about the middle class". When they do - turn it around and say "OK, what about the middle class when we do nothing and their benefits go down 27% and don't even have a PRA to help them out?".
As far as the substance of means testing goes I'm generally in favor of it, especially with regard to entitlements. I'm aware of valid criticisms that ask why should someone be "punished" for being successful. But here, the system is going bankrupt and it may be the 'least worst" option that has a realistic chance to get somewhere.
But the best thing is that by means testing social security you get away from a mentality of a "universal entitlement". Once you put a dent in the fact that someone is "automatically" entitled to a certain benefit level, then you undermine support for the program.
To me, that's a good first step. The more you can do to get people away from a government "entitlement" line of thinking, and make them realize that they are responsible for their own retirement security I'm for it. This means testing idea won't solve that problem right away but it's a start. Plus, people of my generation don't think they're getting social security anyway, and are used to saving for retirement outside the system so it's no big deal. It will be funny to watch the Democrats defend Bill Gates getting the same social security benefits as a guy who worked in a manufacturing plant for 40 years.
On other issues - the pitch for the energy bill was OK. Expect the press to jump on the fact that he admitted that he can't do anything about gas prices immediately. People like us know that but expect the left to be talking about his desire to pass an energy bill as a reward to his "oil buddies".
The discussion about North Korea was more of the same, and he again laid out a great justification of liberating Iraq.
Surprisingly, the President had kid gloves when it came to criticizing Democrats on his judicial appointments, even disavowing the argument that Democratic opposition to judges was based on hostility to religious people. I don't know how some of the people who attended "Justice Sunday" are going to feel about it, but I would imagine the President didn't want to go down that road if the Senate is going to invoke the "Constitutional option" anyway and he didn't want the Dems to have ammuntion to accuse him of aligning with the "Jesus Freaks".
You could tell how passionate he was when talking about the No Child Left Behind law, and his disdain for those teachers unions who don't like to be tested. While we admire the President's commitment to education, this was a bad law from the start. It spent way too much money on what has been a rat hole for funds, and he didn't even get school vouchers out of it. The law, along with all the money being spent on it, are best left by the wayside.
Finally, the negative tone of the questions was pretty bad, though not surprising. Perhaps the worst one was the guy from the LA Times wanting him to take blame for the partisan atmosphere in Washington. WTF?!!! I don't see the President comparing his opponents to Hitler or pretending to assassinate them.
Since I was watching on Fox News, I didn't know till just now that the networks cut off the President in mid-sentence to show Paris Hilton's Simple Life, Donald Trump's The Apprentice and Survivor. Think about that for a second. I love football, but after the "Heidi Game" the rule is that you can't cut off NFL games till they're over no matter how big of a blowout the game is. Yet they have no problem cutting off the President. I wonder if they'd have done that to Bill Clinton.
Bottom line is that the President did a good job tonight, but how many watched. We hope that some actions follow the words.
Well, everyone knows they cannot count on it to live on. Even the Canadian government now admits the intention of CPP is to provide only 25% of a person's retirement needs.
Yeah, so a person who squandered their earnings and never saved a dime will likely at least walk away with $500 from CPP, and then a supplememt to bring it to $700 per month. Then when they are infirm the government will put them in a rest home free of charge.
BS. As long as SS is a mandatory system, why should it be means tested? If what you put into the system bears no relation to what you get out of it, then it is just another wealth redistribution scheme that no self-respecting conservative should accept. Allowing the government to establish means testing is fraught with all kinds of problems. A person's economic situation can change dramatically, even after 62. And whatever means testing is proposed will not affect the looming demographic problem created by the huge cohort of baby boomers who will be going on the rolls in a few years. It will be our children and their children who will pick up the tab. "I got mine, sorry you can't get yours" won't sit well with those born after the cutoff date.
SS does not have to go bankrupt if some changes are made. Personal accounts linked with a reduction in the defined benefits portion of the system can put SS on a firm financial basis permanently.
But the best thing is that by means testing social security you get away from a mentality of a "universal entitlement". Once you put a dent in the fact that someone is "automatically" entitled to a certain benefit level, then you undermine support for the program.
Rather specious reasoning. The reason there is a mentality of "universal entitlement" is due to the fact that SS is compulsory and there is a specific formula, which is used to compute benefits based on contributions. Once you delink contributions from benefits, you will have a political firestorm, which will cause the politicians to bend to the popular will and be gone.
If someone is not "automatically" entitled to a defined benefit, that is when you "undermine support for the program." Who wants to pay into a system and not get any or little benefit? SS is already taxed based on other sources of income.
"those evil repubs want to take away your SS"....same crap every election.
if SS is fixed, they lose one of their MAIN wedge issues
...and jump right back into that frying pan known as income re-distribution -- to say nothing of the government engaging in a "bait and switch" scheme with citizens. You don't get out of failed socialist schemes by coming up with more crooked socialist schemes.
My father worked like a dog for 65 years, retiring at 90. Even though he received the maximum allowable SS retirement income, he never even came close to recouping what he'd paid in. So it already has a built-in bias against the successful and productive. Like any other socialist scheme, it must.
You raise good and valid points. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think that realistically this is about all we could get. Yes, it's still a "universal" system, but in my opinion the long term thinking goes like this:
One of the reasons it's been so hard to change SS is because everyone was invested in it the same way - you retire you get your benefits. Once the more well off people aren't getting the full benefit and it's getting reduced becaue they're successful, an entire portion of the population begins to think the whole program is no good. You have to start chipping away at the support somehow. Is this the way to do it? It's certainly not the best, but perhaps it's a start. Combine that with the fact that peopel around my age (34) realize that they're not going to get much out of the current system, and thus are not as wedded to it as older generations, and you gave some groundwork in place to move toward a better system.
Will it work? Who knows. It's surely not perfect, but it's a start I think.
I don't agree with you that pitting one economic class against another is the way to lessen support for SS. I would approach it much more positively demonstrating that it is a win-win solution for everyone. Preserving the solvency of SS is really not a difficult problem, especially compared to Medicare, which is really in dire straits and a magnitude of four over SS.
It is imperative that we get the entitlement programs under control sooner rather than later. If we don't, the entire economy will come down like a house of cards. At ge 34, you have a much bigger stake in all of this than I do at age 62. It is interesting to note that both Russia and Germany have been forced to cut entitlement benefits for the elderly now. They have no other choice other than to raise taxes to raise more revenue, which is self-defeating because it decreases their global competitiveness.
Drunken Troll.
Here kitty kitty.
The robber barrons and IBM put us in prison?
Cool.
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.