Social Security: President Bush Wants One More Shot
Thursday, August 10
Voters, take note: when it comes to President Bush and the quest to ditch Social Security, Captain Ahab is still hunting his whale:
Bush, for his part, appears fixated on the issue, even as he is focused on securing new immigration legislation and preoccupied by several world crises. Despite being forced to shelve his Social Security plan -- which included establishing private investment accounts and reducing guaranteed benefits down the road -- Bush regularly mentions his desire to tackle the issue again.
"We need to cut entitlement spending," the president said in one typical comment last month, as he reviewed the midyear budget numbers. "The easy fix is to say 'Let somebody else deal with it.' This administration is going to continue trying to work with Congress to deal with these issues." ...
[S]ome administration officials and lawmakers are hopeful that the partisan wars may recede after the November balloting, that the public is eager for practical solutions -- and that there could be a small window to try again before the 2008 presidential campaign reaches full bloom. "It's a limited opportunity, but it's one that [Bush] is interested in," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Budget Committee. "I have spoken to him innumerable times about this, and he's engaged. ... He wants to move in this area."
If the bipartisanship that Bush wants amounts to his usual variety -- in other words, everybody signing on to what the White House wants -- then the only "practical solution" worth considering is this: waiting ’til 2009 for Bush to head back to Crawford.
Posted by Americans United For Change Web Team
3 Comments
Don’t be too quick to dismiss private accounts as an avenue to reform. If workers can invest a portion of these shares where they work and have their unions or professional association vote these shares and elect the same proportion to the board (abolishing unitary boards in favor of representative boards like non-profits have), the entire landscape of American industry will change, especially with regard to sending American jobs overseas. Of course, if workers can only invest in an index fund its good bye job, see you in Shanghai. The other reform to work for (which may also be a poison pill) is to eliminate the caps and credit each employee THE AVERAGE WAGE as part of the employer contribution (if not both).
Remember, in 1992, Ron Brown, may he rest in peace, attacked Bush I for trying to balance the budget using payroll tax revenue. He suggested then that the excess in social security be invested in private accounts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, may he also rest in peace, participated in the Bush commission for the same reason.
Michael Bindner in Alexandria, Virginia | Monday, August 14 at 10:56 PM
Geez! It never stops with these guys! Privatizing Social Security is NOT good for the PEOPLE. Sure, Bush & Cronies, Inc. will benefit from it as an investment based pension.
However, the working class in America will teeter on the retirement tightrope as market instability sends tremmors through Wall Street.
Further, how will indigient children receive healthcare with privatization? Currently, Social Security pays roughly 30% toward health care costs for these children.
Lynn Olsen, spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics concurs.
Think clearly here folks: the self-proclaimed members of the “Values Party” want to strip older Americans of guaranteed retirement income; the Compassionate Conservatives want to
leave sick children without an alternative (I personally witnessed a Haitian-American family struggle with this: their 5 year old was hit by a drunk driver and then diagnosed with Luekemia during a post-op exam).
Bush has spent the Social Security surplus in Iraq. He and the OSP gang have engaged in the shameless sacrifice of United States servicemen and women to control a natural resource that does not belong to us, in an attempt to stabilize market volatility in the energy sector.
All of this, brought to you by “Values Party.”
No. Not in my book. We need to elect strong leaders with a moral vision.
I am urging all of you to research and investigate Democratic candidates. Support them with your votes - let Bush hear us loud and clear in Nov!
Stephanie in Savannah, GA | Tuesday, August 15 at 08:16 AM
Social Security is NOT, and never was designed to be, a SAVINGS program. It is a TAX that provides revenue for the support of those who, for legitimate reasons, are unable to support themselves.
The answer is NOT to turn it into a savings program - we have IRAs, 401ks, Keough Plans, SIMPLE plans, etc., for saving.
The answer is to remove the PERSONAL contribution cap, as was done for the Medicare contribution. The EMPLOYER contribution cap should continue to increase, as both caps do today. This will insure every individual pays the same percentage of earned income (and perks, bonuses and exercised stock options should be included), but will NOT place an undue burden on employers.
In addition, the IRA contribution caps should be significantly increased, and IRA contributions should be allowed independent of whether an employee has an employer’s retirement plan available to him or her. This will encourage more savings.
Some minimum amount ($500-$1000) of earned interest and dividends should be excluded from federal taxation, to further encourage individual savings and investment.
Tom Rottmayer in Columbus, OH | Tuesday, August 15 at 10:58 AM