2
   

Bush plan to cripple SS

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 03:52 pm
Have any of you seen the latest tv ad being shown? It says the democrats are not making any recommendations on social security. I think Bush and his gang finds saving Terri Schiavo more important than all the other Americans who are alive and need medical care. As he said, "each life is important."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 03:57 pm
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4113&n=1


Quote:

Bush Launches Pre-Emptive Attack On Social Security"Up until several days ago, we attempted to negotiate with Social Security, by proposing a plan under which wage-earners would invest their withheld income in the stock market," Bush said. "These personal savings accounts would have pumped a great deal of wealth into our deflated economy, but this is not about temporarily inflating a beleaguered market. It is a battle for freedom, and it is time to take decisive action. America, we must strike Social Security."

Bush said he was reluctant to detail the specifics of his strategic plan, as he did not wish to jeopardize national security.


U.S. Army War College professor of economics Henry Reed said destroying the program will require a "broad and concerted campaign."

"The Social Security system is complex and resilient, with a network of cooperative agents across the country and an entrenched relationship with many of the nation's most desperate elements," Reed said. "Luckily, a well-funded coalition of pro-business forces has already begun striking selected targets of legislative importance in order to stop the cells that provide assistance to people on the extreme end of the age spectrum."

Reed put the current situation in historical context.

"Bush could ignore this threat, like all the presidents since Truman have done," Reed said. "By confronting this potential future crisis now, Bush will free all Americans from the treacherous safety net that currently entangles their futures."

The president closed his address by asking the public to support the massive undertaking.

"Americans young and old will be making great sacrifices for this cause," Bush said. "But there will be innumerable gains for other segments of the population, from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. As for the brave men and women of the GOP already embroiled in this fight, my prayers are with you."

Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman applauded the president's campaign.

"As usual, people are criticizing the president for being too courageous, for leading too fearlessly," Mehlman said. "The bleeding hearts say you could save Social Security with less money than we're currently spending in Iraq. But that's billions and billions of dollars we don't have, people."


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 06:32 am
clylop, regarding the above, the man has no shame. Luckily people are fighting him on this one anyway.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11076-2005Mar29.html

AARP Leads With Wallet In Fight Over Social Security
Bush's Plan Faces Formidable Foe

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 30, 2005; Page A01

In the punch-for-punch debate over Social Security, AARP is working hard to keep the White House on the ropes.

When President Bush arrives in Iowa today to talk up his private-accounts proposal, the senior citizens group plans to counter him with two news conferences, the release of a national poll, full-page newspaper advertisements and commercials on radio and television.

Over this week and last, AARP, the nation's largest lobby, will have spent more than $5 million on ads attacking the president's Social Security plan -- nearly three times as much as all the supporters of his proposal put together. That's just for starters.

Every state that has a swing-vote senator will have AARP forums, which have been drawing about 300 people each. And every time a member of Congress holds a town meeting, AARP volunteers are dispatched there to protest the president's plan for individual accounts.

"We're going to do this as long as it takes," said William D. Novelli, AARP's chief executive. "We will put just about everything we have into it."

No organization has more tools or more money to wage such a battle. So both its friends and adversaries agree: AARP holds the key to how or whether Social Security will be restructured this year. "It will be very difficult to do anything without AARP's support," said Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "And it would be a heck of a lot easier if they came along."

AARP's 35 million membership base is 10 times the size of the National Rifle Association's, and its $800 million budget is five times that of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's biggest business association. In number of members, AARP is surpassed only by the Roman Catholic Church.

Some polls show that a majority of voters reject Bush's plan to make investment accounts part of the retirement program, a result that can be attributed in part to AARP's persuasiveness. "We're behind the curve right now," said Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), a Bush ally and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Social Security subcommittee. "The momentum is with the other team."

As head of that team, Novelli works 13-hour days packed with visits to Capitol Hill and the White House, where he is, by turns, berated for his position but probed to see where he might compromise.

Bush has bashed as "scare tactics" commercials by AARP and like-minded groups, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) called AARP "incredibly irresponsible" for rejecting "a solution that hasn't even been written yet." Yet behind the scenes, Novelli and his staff have been consulting with Bush aides Karl Rove and Allan Hubbard about finding common ground, and talking with congressional leaders of both parties.

For now, compromise doesn't look likely. Members of Congress and AARP officials said their meetings have involved mostly laying out conflicting views. They also say neither side is likely to budge significantly until Bush completes his 60-day campaign for his proposal at the end of next month.

But then the issue could be reopened. "I'm hopeful that maybe we can construct a plan," McCrery said. "AARP represents for us a very valuable ally if we can get it to sign on to what we want to do."

While attending a Social Security speech by the president last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) encouraged AARP to bend. "I want to say to our friends in the AARP -- and they are my friends -- come to the table with us," he said.

AARP isn't averse to changing Social Security; it merely disapproves of Bush's plan on private accounts. AARP would add such accounts as a supplement to Social Security and rejects the idea of putting the program's basic guaranteed benefit at risk with market investments. It also would be willing to fiddle with other aspects of the program (such as who gets taxed) to make sure it remains solvent in the long term.

AARP is an 1,800-employee association that mobilizes better than any other group the people who vote in the greatest numbers: senior citizens. It reaches them with the nation's largest-circulation publications, AARP the Magazine and the AARP Bulletin, which are delivered to 22 million households. It also has offices in all 50 states, a national radio show, a heavily visited Web site and a 650,000-circulation Spanish-language magazine, Segunda Juventud (Second Youth).

On top of that, AARP has taught 1.5 million members how to contact their elected representatives. Those activists receive their own publication, as well as periodic "alerts" that launch them into action from every congressional district. So far this year, the 535 members of Congress have received more than 460,000 phone calls complaining about Bush's private-account plan, according to AARP.

"When AARP has a consensus among its members, it's difficult to stop," said James A. Thurber, a lobbying expert at American University. "On this issue it has a consensus."

In late 2003, however, AARP shocked official Washington and much of its membership by backing Bush's drive to add a prescription-drug benefit to Medicare. The support helped the legislation to become law, but it also led to the resignation of 70,000 AARP members and angered Democratic members of Congress who had considered AARP a reliable partner.

This time around, AARP won't take its members' loyalty so lightly, Novelli said. Its in-house polling division will take surveys and conduct focus groups before the organization takes any new stand on Social Security changes.

That kind of work is expensive but AARP can afford it. The association took in $350 million last year from a variety of royalty-producing enterprises, including insurance, prescription drugs and mutual funds.

AARP is facing criticism of its mutual fund business because that kind of investment would probably be a feature of the accounts the president is pushing. Scudder Investments Inc., a unit of Deutsche Bank AG, handles 600,000 mutual fund accounts of AARP members, with $10.5 billion in assets. AARP helped develop those accounts and earns a small percentage of the management fee that Scudder charges. Last year, the association earned about $7 million from those fees and is working with Scudder to develop more funds, AARP officials said.

"It is ironic that they would make such a fuss about risky investments in Social Security when they actually promote investments in mutual funds," McCrery said. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), an AARP sympathizer, agreed: "AARP needs to take care that when it's in the policy realm, it declares any conflicts of interest."

In response, Novelli denied that there was inconsistency between AARP's resistance to Bush's plan and the fact that AARP encourages its members to invest in mutual funds, especially its own. Bush would make accounts part of Social Security and thus expose its benefits to risk, he said. AARP believes that Social Security's government-provided payments should remain inviolate.

AARP was started in 1958 as a nonprofit organization that also had a business purpose. Its founder, retired educator Ethel Percy Andrus, wanted not only to advance the interests of older Americans but also to create a market large enough to sustain the sale of health insurance to them. That dual role led to accusations of self-serving motives during the Medicare drug debate. Critics asked how AARP could be impartial on prescription subsidies when it made money from a mail-order pharmacy.

The harshest complaints about AARP lately have come from a group formed specifically to undercut it on Social Security. USA Next has recruited some of the consultants who advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertising campaign against Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry last year. Its tactics have been notably rough. In an Internet commercial, USA Next accused AARP of supporting gay marriage, a position that AARP says it never took.

But USA Next's claimed membership of 1.5 million is tiny compared with AARP's. AARP dwarfs every other group that represents older people. The more than $15 million that it has spent already on advertising this year is three-quarters of the entire annual budget of Progress for America, the largest pro-Bush Social Security lobby.

"On Social Security, you have no choice but to hug AARP tight," said Barbara B. Kennelly, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "They will be very influential."



© 2005 The Washington Post Company
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:15 pm
the May 09, 2005 edition

Immigration can't save Social Security

By David R. Francis

It's an article of faith among immigration advocates that bringing in more Latin Americans, Asians, and others can help solve some of the America's most intractable demographic problems. An aging workforce? No problem. Immigrants will fill the jobs retirees leave behind. Medicare? Taxes on immigrants' wages will help fill the gap. Social Security? Ditto.
In the Monitor Monday, 05/09/05
The key point is that the average age of immigrants in recent years has been 29, which means they have plenty of years to work and pay into the system "before drawing a nickel" in retirement, says Ben Wattenberg, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

But Mr. Wattenberg and other pro-immigration activists are getting a sharp challenge from Steven Camarota of the Center of Immigration Studies in Washington. In his view, immigration "doesn't make much difference."

Every year, the United States nets an additional 1.3 million people from overseas, Mr. Camarota figures. That's the largest flow of new immigrants in US history. But in a nation of 293 million, it's peanuts - less than 1 percent a year.

Furthermore, immigrants, just like native-born Americans, have a birthday each year. So the relative youth of recent immigrants and their tendency to have more children than natives have had only a minor effect on the average age of Americans. Nor do projections into the future show much change.

In a 19-page study using 2000 Census data and more recent data, Camarota offers somewhat startling findings:

• In 2000, the average age of an immigrant was 39. That's about four years older than the average age of a native-born American. That number includes immigrants who have been in the country a long time.

• If the 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 are excluded from the 2000 Census data, it raises the average age of the remaining native population by only four months.

• Immigrants aren't the primary reason for the relatively high fertility rate in the US of 2.1 children per woman, compared with 1.4 in Europe, 1.5 in Canada, and 1.3 in Japan and South Korea. Immigrant women in the US average 2.7 children. Even so, without the immigrants, the US fertility rate would have dropped to only about 2 per woman. Moreover, the fertility rate of the children and grandchildren of immigrants quickly drops toward the average of native-born Americans.

• In 2000, 66.2 percent of the population was of working age, that is, between 15 and 64. Without the 31 million post-1980 immigrants and their US-born children, the working-age population would be 66 percent, virtually unchanged, even though 81.9 percent of immigrants in 2000 were working age.

That working-age percentage is crucial when considering whether there will be enough workers in the future to support those who are retired.

The Social Security Administration, in making its standard 75-year projections into the future for the system, must make several assumptions about immigrants, including how many arrive each year. It also assumes 25 percent of new arrivals will leave the US each year, and that they will have average earnings.

In fact, Camarota notes, a large body of research shows immigrants on average make decidedly less money than native-born Americans. So they pay less payroll taxes. And they draw out proportionately more because the system is structured to redistribute income a little. It provides a bigger pension to low-income workers relative to their Social Security contributions than it does for higher-income workers.

Thus, the younger age of immigrants may not result in a positive impact on Social Security, Camarota concludes.

Moreover, many immigrants are eligible to draw on the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program Congress devised in 1975 to refund all or part of Social Security taxes paid by low-wage workers. The credit is funded out of general revenues, not by the Social Security system. But it remains germane to the aging issue.

Even if legal immigration was doubled - from an assumed 800,000 per year to 1.6 million - it would still leave more than 90 percent of the Social Security future funding problem in place in dollar terms, Camarota calculates.

Of course, immigration advocates have varied reasons for their position. Wattenberg, for instance, sees a large US population, enlarged by immigration, as important to the nation's power.

"A big strong country can do things in its own best interest more than a weak small country," he says.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:34 pm
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51180&highlight=

Here is a post from this past weekend.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:56 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
RfromP wrote:
I'm not an expert on investing so this might sound naive but why doesn't the gov't run social security like the lottery? Can't it be fixed by allocating money to buy zero-coupon bonds (annually) so by 2042 the ones bought now would mature by then and so on every year after?


The funds are in something better....Government Securities.

What if the money had been invested in Enron bonds?


Or,what if the money had been invested in Microsoft?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 07:22 pm
As originally presented to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt's plan called for voluntary additional contributions above and beyond the mandated participation, even providing for incremental purchase of such through authorization of issuance of stamps fractional to the face value of the individual annuities. In Roosevelt's conception, the private contributions would eventually surpass, supplant, and replace the mandated contributions, preventing Social Security from evolving into a tax-supported, government-funded welfare entitlement.

74th Congress, 1st Session}
H.R, 4120 (note: 64 page .pdf file)

Quote:
A Bill
To alleviate the hazards of old age, unemployment.,
illness, and dependency; to establish a Social Insurance Board in the Department
of Labor, to raise revenue, and for other purposes.


... TITLE V
ANNUITY CERTIFICATES
SECTION 501. The Social Insurance Board is authorized to borrow from time to time, on the credit of the United States, for the purpose of increasing the old-age fund established under this Act, such sum or sums as in its judgment may be desilrable, and to issue therefore, at such prices and upon such terms and conditions as it may determine, annuity certificates : Provided, That no such certificate shall be issued escept to United States citizens: And provided further, That there shall not be issued to an individual a certifkator certificates for loans which would amount, with interest accretions, to more than an annuity of $100 a month after such individual attained the age of sixty-five years,

FOR AND CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATES
SEC. 502. Each annuity certificate issued under this title shall be in such form and subject to such terms and conditions, and may bear such interest and have such pro-visions for payment, as the Social Insurance Board ma-vprescribe : Provided, That payment of interest may be deferred and payment of principal and interest to persons to whom such certificates have been issued may be made in monthly installments.

ISSUANCE OF STAMPS
SEC.503. The Board may, under such regulations and upon such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, issue, or cause to be issued, stamps to evidence payments for, or on account of, such certificates.

DEPOSITS IN OLD-AGE FUND
SEC. 504. All moneys borrowed under this title shall be deposited by the Board in the old-age fund established under section 404 of this Act, to be held and used by the Secretary of the Treasury as part of such fund. The Board shall requisition from such fund from time to time all amounts needed to meet promptly all obligations of the United States arising out of annuity certificates.

RULES AND REGULATIONS
SEC. 505. The Social Insurance Board shall make all rules and regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of this tile


Quote:
United States Social Security Administration:
The Roosevelt Administration's Proposal for Voluntary Annuities


(Roosevelt is quoted:) "The voluntary system of old-age annuities we suggest as a supplement to the compulsory plan contemplates that the Government shall sell to individuals, on a cost basis, deferred life annuities similar to those issued by commercial insurance companies; that is, in consideration of premiums paid at specified ages, the Government would guarantee the purchasers a definite amount of income, starting at 65, for example, and continuing throughout the lifetime of the annuitant. The primary purpose of the plan is to offer persons not included within the compulsory system a systematic and safe method of providing for their old age. It could also be used by insured persons as a means of supplementing the old-age income provided under the compulsory plan.

Without attempting to outline in detail the terms under which Government annuities should be sold, it is believed that a satisfactory and workable plan, based on the following principles, could be developed without great difficulty:

1. The plan should be self-supporting, and premiums and benefits should be kept in actuarial balance by any necessary revision of the rates which periodic examinations of the experience would indicate.
2. The terms of the plan should be kept as simple as practicable in the interest of economical administration and to minimize misunderstanding on the part of individuals utilizing these arrangements. This could be accomplished by limiting the types of annuity offered to two or three of the most important standard forms.
3. The plan should be designed primarily for the same economic groups as those covered by the compulsory system; hence, provision should be made for the acceptance of relatively small premiums (as little as $1 per month) and the maximum annuity payable to any individual should be limited to the actuarial equivalent of $50 per month.
4. The plan should be administered by the social insurance board along with the compulsory old-age-insurance system, but as a separate undertaking.
5. The social insurance board should study the feasibility of Government contribution toward the annuities of people now middle aged or older with income of $2,500 per year or less who come under this voluntary plan . . ."

... It was the President's view, and that of the experts on his Committee on Economic Security (CES), that ultimately the welfare pensions funded by the states with federal contributions would become unnecessary as the two programs of annuities would gradually come to obviate any need for such welfare type programs.

In his January 17th message to Congress, President Roosevelt summarized his view of these three proposals this way:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."


Title V was sacrificed to overcome the objections of the essentially Republican Insurance Industry Lobby, which saw government sales of annuities to individuals as direct competition against one of their own sacred cash cows. In return for the Republican Congressional votes necessary to pass the bill, the majority Democratic Ways and Means Committee agreed to scrap Title V and its annuities plan. The thus-ammended bill went on to pass both Houses.

So, what Bush proposes now, and what The Democrats oppose now, is the full fruition of Roosevelt's original vision.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 06:51 am
Timber wrote
Quote:
So, what Bush proposes now, and what The Democrats oppose now, is the full fruition of Roosevelt's original vision.



Not quite
As I understand it the purchase annuities was proposed as an addition to SS. Social security funds were not to be used. That too is what Moinahan[sp] proposed.
In addition by his and members of his entourage the privatization plan will in no way help bring the system into solvency. That is what needs to be addressed.
As for his latest brain fart, turning it into a welfare system supported by social security funds. It is just another tax imposed on only those people who earn a wage. Welfare systems if they are to be should be supported by general tax revenues inorder that everyone join into the fun.

I have yet to see a Bush plan that designed to tackle the solvency problem. IMO a good start would be raising of the cap.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 09:55 pm
Five Nobel laureates in economics plus over 400 other economists support reforming Social Security and including private accounts.

http://www.cato.org/pressroom/ssad.pdf
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 10:01 am
JW, No doubt there "will be" a crisis (some estimates put it at 2041) in social security, but the fact of the matter is, there is a "CURRENT CRISIS" in health care for all Americans. There is a double-digit cost increase in health care, and there is no way this trend is sustainable for this country.

Bush is still trying to sell "personal investment accounts" to young workers, but doesn't really explain what "personal investment accounts" do not guraantee anything. I bet most young people that agree with Bush doesn't understand anything about this "new world economy" nor how the stock market has performed this year; the DOW is down 2.5 percent and the Nasdaq is down 5.1%. Past history is no guarantee for future performance - especially considering the fact that many lost their shirts during the tech bust, and many have still not recovered from that loss from five years ago.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 10:04 am
Haven't seen this thread in a while.

But it is nice to look back and see that Bush's plan, just as we predicted, is dead in the water. It was a mistake.

Hee hee

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 10:32 am
To bad he is not in the same condition. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:35 am
au1929 wrote:
To bad he is not in the same condition. :wink:



Well at least his brain is.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 11:41 am
Correction; Bush's brain has always been "dead in the water." It just took most Americans to realize it just recently.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 06:01:39