MyDD :: Republicans on Social Security

Republicans on Social Security

by Chris Bowers, Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 03:43:26 PM EST

The president says Social Security should be reformed because it is in "crisis." That is an exaggeration.(...)

What constitutes a crisis is a matter of opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or her own. But not to his or her own facts. Here are some:

Social Security outlays may exceed revenues by 2018 -- that date almost certainly will recede further into the future, as it has before, as the economy outperforms expectations. After that, the government bonds that Social Security surpluses have bought (funds used to fund the government) will be entirely redeemed, as the Social Security Administration calculates, by 2042. Or 2052, according to the Congressional Budget Office, using different assumptions about the rate of economic growth. That depends partly on the rate of productivity growth: Might a growth rate unusually high by historic standards become normal? Immigration rates will affect the ratio of workers to retirees.

Some persons warning of a distant Social Security crisis postulate 75 years of 1.8 percent annual growth. But if America has 75 such sluggish years, Social Security's insolvency will hardly be the nation's largest problem -- and personal retirement accounts will reflect, not compensate for, the stagnation.

Newt Gingrich:

The combination of higher birth rates and more immigration makes the United States the healthiest of developed nations. This is not a crisis.

Bill Thomas:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan "a dead horse" and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation.

So much for that famous message discipline.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Do you think this is the begining of seeing (none / 0)

the cracks in the Republican armor? Afterall, they no longer have the Democrats as an excuse. I am curious what impact that will have on discipline on their side, and whether it will result in the same fissures that have hurt Democratic unity in the past?

by bruh21 on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 03:59:04 PM EST

Re: Do you think this is the begining of seeing (none / 0)

Newt Gingrich is posturing for a 2008 run...

The New Democrat

by demburns on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 05:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, everybody but Dubya (none / 0)

has a career to worry about. Until the poll numbers shift dramatically in favor of SS deform, many people are going to keep waffling on this issue. Hence the anticipated media blitz, which may or may not be underway already, for all the attention I've been paying to the media these last two weeks.

Was there anything on this in the inaugural address?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 05:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We should focus on Education... (none / 0)

We should focus our energy on an issue that we can change.

We can't change SS. We have already won. W will get no traction. Republicans can't support him due to SS overwhelming popularity.

Vote against SS change yes. But lets put our energy into an issue that we can change the outcome of.

by donkeykong on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 04:43:25 PM EST

It Ain't Over Yet (3.00 / 1)

So far so good on Social Security defense - but it isn't over until it's over (defined by me as when the next budget is passed without any form of private accounts stuck somewhere inside a bill).

Second, there is a positive outcome here -- reframe the political debate to our advantage by highlighting the fact that (a) Social Security is a vitally necessary government program; (b) that Republicans want to kill it, in order to (c) fill the coffers of their rich friends on Wall Street.

This is our moment to redefine the Republican party, to our advantage. Far from moving on, we should be rubbing their noses in it until Bush himself cries "uncle."

That's why the early signs of surrender are out already - the smart money on the other side knows where this is headed, and wants to end the debate before the damage is terminal.

Prop 'em up against the ropes and beat 'em to a bloody pulp, I say. Don't let them slink back to their corner and regroup before the next round.

by gregabbott on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 05:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Ain't Over Yet (none / 0)

Bush will get a token private accounts in SS. Not the 1/3 he wants but he has too large a majority to not get a token. But he won't get enough to damage SS.
Danger of saying republican's want to kill it because even 100% private SS is not killed. Need to clarify that Republicans want to remove the security part that protects against great depressions like 1920 or 2000. Its important to have a decent income unrelated to the Stock market.
SS needs to be reformed so that it doesn't grow to exceed the rest of the USA budget in the future. Many Dems agree on this. There are very painless ways to do this. Example anyone under 40 will only get SS payments that increase based on 50% wage increase rate and 50% inflation rate. Currently SS payments go up with wage increases not with inflation, wage increases are larger than inflation.

IE if inflation is 2% and wage increase is 4% currently SS would go up 4% a year. Having SS go up 3% a year instead is not a major blow to retires and will slow SS becoming larger than all else in budget.

by donkeykong on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 06:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Ain't Over Yet (none / 0)

As I understand the "Byrd rule" in the Senate, it will take 60 votes to amend Social Security. I suppose that some private account legislation could slip by with Landrieu, Lieberman, Nelson, kind of votes, but . . .

I truly hope the Senate Dems hold the line. The Republicans paid no price at all for failing to compromise with Clinton on the health care crisis, for example, and today the Dems won't pay a price either -- you never pay a price for standing up to defend your core principles.

Yes, there are decent Social Security reform proposals out there. But there's plenty of time to implement these changes under a future Democratic administration -- and that's the time to build political capital by taking a statesman-like approach.

By agreeing to a compromise under these circumstances, we only legitimize Bush's position. This is dangerous - by negotiating with Bush, we would unwittingly expand the boundaries of the debate and thereby encourage Bush to try again later.

If we agree to even token private accounts now, it gives Bush four years to come back and try and expand them. And once Democrats get used to the idea of voting for private accounts, it'll be easier to do it next time.

No good can come from letting Bush have even a partial victory on Social Security. Either politically or in policy terms.

by gregabbott on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 07:54:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Ain't Over Yet (none / 0)

I think its interesting to break SS into two functions.

Allow survival of seniors and disabled.
Provide a standard of living that allows dignity.

The argument for Stock market or other investment of funds is that the money is in play in the capital markets rather than in one hand out the other or in government bonds earning 2%.

The issue I think is what do we feel about letting people invest the money needed for item 2 and in doing so have a change at more money and also a chance at less...

I am open either way as I won't be needing SS for retirement. I have seen some recent SS blogs that have moved me more towards saying we want to keep #2 inside current SS but I am still open to other options.

From what I can see #2 has grown over time and origionally it was a very small portion of total.

by donkeykong on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 09:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unsustainable.... (none / 0)

Higher birth rates?

I suspect that those higher birth rates that he celebrates are in the immigrant community...

Meanwhile, many Americans are too worried about the future to consider having children.

I also read recently that a huge amount of US economic growth is in immigrant businesses that serve mostly immigrants.. If you subtract that from the economic figures, the economy is constricting and losing lots of jobs..

Food for thought..

Immigrants soon become established.. and then they can no longer work 80 hour weeks, 18 hour days..

I am not criticizing immigrants (in fact, I admire many of them very much, for having the courage to strike out in search of a better life) but I am basically saying that the current economic situation for all Americans is unraveling because it is not sustainable...

We are not sustaining it...

We are exporting our best jobs and not training people to take the jobs that will exist in the future..

Why? because we are too cheap...

Its a fatal mistake that Rome, England, Spain and other once-great nations made... on the way down...

Will we share their fate?

by ultraworld on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 09:54:28 PM EST

Bill Thomas: No Errand Boy (none / 0)

Whatever else we may all think of California's Bill Thomas, he is anything BUT Dubya's errand boy; he will not simply take dictation from the administration on Social Security and dutifully run with it.

Moreover, Thomas has been in the House since 1978 and so was there to witness firsthand how the Reagan Administration's (and newly-Republican Senate's) attack on Social Security led to an angry elderly backlash... a backlash which resulted in the decimation of their majority status in the Senate in the 1986 mid-term election.

Finally, no one has to "paint" the Republicans as enemies of Social Security. They simply are, and have unapologetically been so ever since the very idea was proposed in the Congress during the Roosevelt Administration.

With due respect and apologies to the late Senator H. John Heinz III (possibly the last human Republican and the last honest friend of Social Security), to trust the Republican Party with "reforming" Social Security is tantamount to trusting your child with a known pedophile.

by PJBurke on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 02:55:48 PM EST

seegle (none / 0)

视频会议专家视高科技为您提供专业的视频会议系统、软件视频会议、视频会议软件、软件视频会议系统、网络会议、网络视频会议、网络视频会议系统、视频会议方案、视频会议技术、视频会议系统、视频会议、视频会议租用、视频会议购买、视频会议试用、视频会议下载、视频会议软件下载、视高通、视高即时通等服务。

by shzgcs on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 12:44:21 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.