Social Security Bill Eases Up on Accounts

[applegrove]

Social Security Bill Eases Up on Accounts

Jun 22, 2:21 AM (ET)

By DAVID ESPO

"WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

-- Snip -- "

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050622/D8ASG6R00.html

[aion]

1. Excesses should be invested, not spent

I think this is a much more reasonable approach, but the devil is bound to be in the details. Without allowing individuals to determine the choices for investment, who will do it? What ulterior motives might they have?

The current system does invest excesses. As they're currently linked to T-Bills (ie. money demand), they should be earning some interest. And unless our money completely collapses, there is not any real risk.

Compare that to investing in stocks, and I think you can see the problem. Stock market crashes, though rare, are still more frequent events than currency collapses.

[endarkenment]

2. Given that the article basically is information-free

how is one supposed to understand what is being proposed? I suspect anything and everything coming out of the Ruling Party, especially with respect to social security. Beware of 'showcase bills that don't change anything'. I don't believe it for a second.

Social security is not broken and does not need to get 'fixed'. What is broken is out of control spending and insane and unfair tax cuts that, in both cases, are corrupt give-aways to the rich and powerful.

[applegrove]

56. Well the WH plan is totally information free and vague too. You fight

fire with fire - I guess. IMHO perhaps that is why it is so vague. Makes it virtually impossible to detract if there are no facts.

That's it. These neocons are so into myths that they have us all not putting anything down on paper.

[sabra]

3. Bush encourages Social Security bill without private investment accounts

<<SNIP>>
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=91023

Bush encourages Social Security bill without private investment accounts
By Associated Press
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - Updated: 02:51 PM EST

WASHINGTON - President Bush encouraged a Republican senator Tuesday to offer Social Security legislation that would not include the private investment accounts that were the centerpiece of the plan Bush has promoted all year.

Bush's nod to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett comes as public polls show that most Americans do not support the president's handling of the Social Security issue. Congress has been deadlocked on it.

Bennett said that during a luncheon with other Republican senators at the White House, he told the president of his plans to introduce the bill as early as next week.

``He indicated that I should go forward and do that,'' Bennett said. ``And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included.''

<</SNIP>>

[KyndCulture]

4. WTF? so the plan is NO plan.. sounds familiar.

[sabra]

8. oh, there was a plan....

but one that wasn't beneficial for us.

[lancdem]

5. I don't even want THIS bill

[denverbill]

10. Depends on what's in the plan.

If they want to eliminate the cap on SS wages to help keep the funding solvent longer, I'll all for that.

If they want to keep raising the retirement age higher and higher, they can go Cheney themselves.

[VegasWolf]

24. This is a republican plan, raising the cap or index might impact rich

people, of course the retirement age will be raised. 90
years old seems reasonable to Bush.

[VegasWolf]

25. Bush's new plan, offter a 25,000 bonus for people to party for a month

and then they must commit suicide.

[swag]

6. Here's a June 17 SLC Tribune report on Bob Bennett's plan

. . .

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.

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2807560

[WildClarySage]

22. Ahhh, so the rich get richer and the poor

can go fuck themselves.

same old, same old.

[Vitruvius]

23. Note the SCAM; Social Security TAXES are tied to wages; the Rethug

plan is to make BENEFITS fall behind wages -- and pocket the difference to fund tax cuts for the Rethugnican rich.

And -- oh, by-the-way, if you live "too long", they'll cut your benefits further; if you can't afford food and/or medicine, you die and save yet more money for worthy Rethug causes -- like tax cuts for the Rethug rich.


If the Rethugs were honest right-wing-nuts, they'd have the decency to cut SS taxes to match their cuts in SS benefits. And they'd match any benefit cuts for those who live "too long" with lump-sum payouts to the estates of those who don't live long enough to collect the benefits they paid for.

Rethugs are thieves. And -- like most thieves -- they think that honest people are stupid.

[anitar1]

7. Keep your dirty hands off my SS ! Make the super rich

ante up. We do not need any tinkering with the Social Security system, just a separate bill to force the rich to contribute.

[Megahurtz]

15. Agreed!

:thumbsup:

[truthisfreedom]

9. "go ahead and do anything. nothing i'm doing is working! and my numbers

are plummeting. and i need a break so i can go drive my truck around my fake ranch!"

[Itsthetruth]

11. Now That Private Accounts Are Dead Senate Democrats Will Support Cuts!

Democratic Senator Kent Conrad Calls For Social Security Sacrifices!

Finding Common Ground on Social Security Reform by Senators Kent Conrad and Lindsey Graham
January 5, 2005

Senator Conrad is a Democrat from North Dakota. Senator Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.


"With a renewed debate over the future of Social Security now underway, Republicans and Democrats alike need to begin by setting aside our differences and focusing on the common ground between us.

.... strengthening Social Security will require tough choices and, if done in a responsible manner, can greatly improve our nation=s fiscal outlook. Acting sooner will give us more time to adjust and allow for more gradual solutions to be adopted. But there are no easy answers. To address Social Security's funding challenges, all options should be on the table for discussion.

Both parties have been far too hesitant to ask the American people to make sacrifices for the common good. It is our belief the American people, if asked in a responsible manner, will embrace the hard choices necessary to save Social Security for younger workers and future generations.

It is time to address this problem. Social Security must be preserved and strengthened. But we need to be candid about the costs and willing to make the tough choices that real reform will require. If Republicans and Democrats can agree on this, we can save a vital program for generations to come."


Senator Conrad flew with George Bush on Air Force One on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Fargo, North Dakota and discussed Social Security. Senator Conrad said: "I've accepted the President's invitation to accompany him to Fargo and I will be there to welcome him. We'll have a chance to discuss Social Security. As I've made clear, there are places where I agree with the President, and there are places I have concern with the President's plan".

Senator Conrad has not yet indicated what kind's of "sacrifices" he thinks working people should make in order to "save" Social Security. While against privitization, perhaps Senator Conrad favors some of the other proposals Bush is suggesting such as raising the retirement age or changing the formula used to calculate benefits. Calculating benefits based on price increases rather than wage increases could cut future benefits as much as 60%!

Like I've said .... if Bush's privitization plan fails will some Senators go along with other Bush options to cut social security benefits? I bet some will. And Senator Conrad seems like a prime candidate to find "common ground" with Bush and the Republicans to cut benefits and tighten eligibility requirements.]

http://conrad.senate.gov/~conrad/releases/04/12/2005105...

[bettyellen]

13. Dems will support cutting benefits by 60% ???

[Tempest]

12. Lame duck

So much for his political capital spending. LOL!

[MaineDem]

14. I don't believe this

I don't think for a minute Bush will back down on the "private accounts" this easily.

There's more here. Or less. I don't buy this at all.

[mom cat]

28. What will the Repukes "put back in" in conference committee?

I don't trust these goons with anything that has to do with SS. They are just dying to get their hands on our last pot of money!

[jsamuel]

16. Does anyone else hear a FLUSHING noise???

swoooooshhhhhhhhh


:hurts:


Turned the corner and went into bathroom.

[maddezmom]

17. LOL

:D

[cap]

18. so if you are sick and on disability and will linger for a long time

your payments will go down so you will spend your declining years in poor health and financial misery. Or if you are an orphan you wont get as much.

[Pirate Smile]

19. Well, flippity floppity. Yahoo link below

Bush Backs Soc. Sec. Bill Without Accounts

WASHINGTON - President Bush encouraged a Republican senator on Tuesday to offer Social Security legislation that would not include private investment accounts. The White House said the president still was committed to allowing workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes.

Bush's nod to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's plan comes as public polls show that most Americans do not support the president's handling of the Social Security issue. Congress has been deadlocked on it.

Bennett said that during a luncheon with other Republican senators at the White House, he told the president of his plans to introduce the bill as early as next week.

"He indicated that I should go forward and do that," Bennett said. "And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050621/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_social_security;_ylt=AjTCuTEUak056RP1GUnX_tqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

[sadiesworld]

20. LEAVE IT ALONE.

Let's have the fatcats who have enjoyed an artificially low tax burden (reductions in corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes) due to the siphoning off of the SS surplus for general revenue purposes, pony up.

NO to reducing SS benefits, NO to raising the SS rate or cap, NO to raising the retirement age.

They WANT more money from SS for general revenue purposes and to avoid EVER paying back the debt owed.

JUST SAY NO!

[Iowa]

21. The dems had better not cooperate in any way.

If they buy into a republican plan, I'm done with them. There are only 2 things I would support:

-- raise the cap
-- doing nothing

Anything else is a betrayal.

[Supersedeas]

26. and Frat Boy will try to take credit for whatever passes in the interim

[Catfight]

27. So, Bush will SAY anything now...LOL...the sweet sound of defeat! nt

[Vitruvius]

29. Kick

:kick: (to move this thread ahead of the dup...)

[Career Prole]

30. Bush Backs Soc. Sec. Bill Without Accounts

WASHINGTON - President Bush encouraged a Republican senator on Tuesday to offer Social Security legislation that would not include private investment accounts. The White House said the president still was committed to allowing workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes.

Bush's nod to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's plan comes as public polls show that most Americans do not support the president's handling of the Social Security issue. Congress has been deadlocked on it.

Bennett said that during a luncheon with other Republican senators at the White House, he told the president of his plans to introduce the bill as early as next week.

"He indicated that I should go forward and do that," Bennett said. "And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included."
http://tinyurl.com/7njbo

WHAT?!?! Another flip-flop?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. rest assured

that if a SS bill is proposed by a Repuke, there will be language in there to take away benefits to the poor and middle class and give it all to the rich.....

[Vitruvius]

42. Absolutely right; see earlier DU thread at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1568593 , especially "swag"'s post and the replies.

[annabanana]

32. now lets take a good hard look at his substitute..

and make sure he's not slipping goodies to his pals by some other route.

[Career Prole]

35. They bear some watching and no doubt.

I wonder what they'll try? Found this while looking around...

Congress Maneuvers Around Opposition to Private Accounts
Realizing President Bush's plan for private accounts has little hope of passing, Congressional Republicans are looking to salvage a modest victory on Social Security. The Senate is focused on solvency by raising the retirement age to age 69 and cutting benefits. The House is concentrating on a broad package of reforms that address retirement security.

According to The Wall Street Journal, conservative Republicans Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), who staunchly support private accounts, are preparing to introduce legislation that would use Social Security's current surplus to create private accounts, a move that would worsen Social Security's projected future shortfall.
http://www.afscmewv.org/news_and_updates/2005/06_17.htm

Gee...I guess DeMint, Santorum, and DeLay didn't get the memo. :evilgrin:

[Fridays Child]

36. Yes, that old saying about the devil and details does come to mind.

[David Zephyr]

33. Flip Flop. Flip Flop.

[Straight Shooter]

34. If we had a liberal media: "BUSH CAPITULATES TO DEMOCRATS"

What am I thinking? If we had a liberal media, bush wouldn't even be in the White House. In fact, he would never have gotten in there in 2001, either.

Back-pedal, you freak, back-pedal like there's no tomorrow.

[Career Prole]

37. What are the odds "insisting" becomes "suggesting" overnight?

Every S.S. article (until now) has mentioned shrub's "insistence" (and sometimes termed it "stubborn insistence") on private accounts.

When someone asks Scotty tomorrow if shrub is backing down he'll say it was always "just a suggestion".

I can hear it now.

[mbperrin]

38. Let's see if I can explain this carefully: if * is for it, I am against it

!

[rocktivity]

39. Not a flip-flop, product repackaging

You know, the way they turned torture into "environmental manipulation?" If "private accounts" is a four-letter word, then call it something else that "allows working to invest part of their Social Security taxes."

:headbang:
rocknation

[Career Prole]

41. Remove the ribbon from that turd!

Let's try a string of twinkly lights on it!

[Rainscents]

40. Bush is a liar!!!

Bush will never accept anything that don't have private account, look at Yahoo headline, which is full of shit!

The White House said the president is encouraging all members of Congress to offer their ideas to make the Social Security system solvent.

"This in no way should be interpreted to mean that the president is backing off of personal accounts," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. "He is not."

[mikehiggins]

43. This new proposal

still builds private accounts, just pays for it differently.

Its the same old crap in a new paper bag.

Lets see how fast Jomentum and the other Democratic "leaders" jump on board and praise Bush for his reason and understanding.

Yechhh!

These people make me puke in disgust.

[flaminbats]

44. which is worse..privatization or privatizationlite?

Newt didn't win Congress in 94' by compromising on healthcare reform.

[Daphne08]

45. Flip-flopper!

:rofl:

[Moderator]

46. KICK

[Pirate Smile]

47. Private Soc Sec Accounts Not in House Bill (Neither is Solvency)

WASHINGTON - 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/social_security;_

[Pirate Smile]

48. more:

"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.

-snip-
He, too, indicated the bill was designed to outflank Democrats.

"The party of 'no' will have a hard time saying 'no' to saving Social Security," he said.

[greenbriar]

49. dupe

look at the bait and switch thread

[Fluffdaddy]

50. Good to see Bush an the GOP running with their tail between their legs

away from personal accounts

[patricia92243]

51. In other words - Gore's lockbox, n/t

[earth mom]

52. If * is happy about this-then make no mistake they are screwing us again!

[applegrove]

57. And they never put their plan for private accounts down on paper.

They'll deny they lost this one. ***holes!

[nonono]

53. Here is what is wrong with the plan

This sentence from the article is scary:

"ccording to officials familiar with the details, the measure showcases a promise, designed to reassure seniors, that <b>Social Security surplus funds will be held inviolate, available only to create individual accounts</b> that differ sharply from Bush's approach.

Inviolate is defined as "unaltered: not subject to change, damage, or destruction". Does this part "available only to create individual accounts" mean we can only loan the money to create personal accounts?

In other articles they have mentioned putting our surplus in marketable bonds. Could this mean they will use our surplus to finance personal accounts for those under 55 by selling our bonds for personal accounts? If so, we would still be at the risk of the market. And if it can only finance personal accounts who will pay the retire benefits?

[sadiesworld]

54. It's crap.

The basic idea is "we'll stop stealing from the SS fund so long as it is in private accounts". The dems should glom on to the first part of the idea (quit co-mingling) and laugh at the rest.

And what's up with the surplus will "vanish" in 2017--that's when we start using it. what a joke.

BTW, welcome to DU :hi:

[nonono]

55. Each line is a field of explosives

Hi Thanks for the welcome.

"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."

The reason it was made a law that it could only be put into US Treasuries is because they are the safest investment in the world.
They are/were too, until some shyster started giving us unmarketable bonds and until Dubya & Buddies came along.

The surplus bonds are still backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government and there should not be a question of whether they will be honored.

[Moderator]

58. kick

[Pirate Smile]

59. WP: New Plan For Social Security Endorsed -House GOP ..Scale Back Account

New Plan For Social Security Endorsed
House GOP Would Scale Back Accounts

By Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 23, 2005; Page A01

After watching the Social Security debate from the sidelines, House Republican leaders yesterday embraced a new approach to Social Security restructuring that would add individual investment accounts to the program, but on a much smaller scale than the Bush administration favors.

The new accounts would be financed by the Social Security surplus -- the amount of tax revenue not needed to pay current benefits. That money is now used to fund other government activities and is expected to run out after 2016 as the baby-boom generation retires.

By contrast, President Bush's proposed accounts would divert payroll taxes used to fund existing Social Security benefits, which would force the government to borrow to prevent cuts in retirees' monthly checks. Once fully phased in, the Bush plan would allow workers to sock away $3,600 a year in today's dollars. Even in its peak year, the new plan could limit average account contributions to as little as $588.

Still, Republicans hope the new proposal will shift the debate away from securing the system's future through benefit cuts to ending the "raid" on the current Social Security surplus. But the plan, unlike Bush's, would do nothing to remedy the New Deal-era program's long-term fiscal problems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200406.html

[wakeme2008]

60. Sounds like private accounts to me

Just in a new package....

No wonder Bush is pushing the House on this.

[liveoaktx]

61. If it doesn't solve the so-called program, then WHY DO IT?

[Inland]

62. See, the problem with private accounts is that it makes SS more insolvent

Big private accounts make it much more insolvent, small private accounts make it merely more insolvent--

So they are both bad ideas that make the problems worse.

Why would we accept a proposal that makes the problems worse even by a little, bitty bit? To make Commander Cuckoopants happy?

No deal. Repugs, you are on your own until diverting SS funds into private accounts is off the table.

[NashVegas]

63. Ooh, Now We Can Phase Out SS Even Faster!

I'm giggling hysterically at the though of how this is going to be explained.

Q: Why do we have to change SS?
A: Because it's insolvent

Q: How are we going to change it?
A: Well, we're going to take our current surplus -

Q: Wait. Before, you said it was insolvent. How can something be insolvent if there's a surplus?
A: Don't worry, it'll be insolvent by the time we're through.


... And Gore got castigated for using 'lock-box.'

[Beetwasher]

64. "We're Still Gonna Fuck You In The Ass, Just Not As Hard"

Yeah, that'll go over well...:eyes:

[Sugarbleus]

65. Bwahahahahhhahahah....

That pretty much says it all.... (caught me off guard there) LOL LOL