SOCIAL SECURITY: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

GOP Lawmakers Attack Democrats, AARP
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Wednesday, March 2, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




(03-02) 08:33 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --


Republicans attacked the AARP as well as congressional Democrats on Wednesday as they struggled to build momentum behind President Bush's call for personal investment accounts under Social Security.


The AARP, which claims 35 million members age 50 and over, is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after a closed-door meeting with the GOP rank and file.


He called the group's opposition to personal accounts irresponsible and hypothetical, adding that it sells mutual funds to its own membership.


A spokeswoman for the organization had no immediate comment.


DeLay and Speaker Dennis Hastert also criticized congressional Democrats, who are virtually united in opposition to Bush's plans. "The party of no," Hastert called them.


Republicans unleashed their latest attack as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress to act quickly to fix looming financing problems for Social Security as well as Medicare. "If existing promises need to be changed, those changes should be made sooner rather than later," he told the House Budget Committee.


One program provides retirement, survivors and disability income for 54 million Americans, while the other is the government's health care program for seniors.


As he has before, Greenspan endorsed a key element of Bush's plans for Social Security, a proposal that would allow workers to set aside a portion of their payroll taxes to be invested on their own. But he stressed that much more needed to be done to put the giant retirement program and Medicare, which he said faced even more severe financial strains, on a more sound footing.


Diverting the payroll taxes into the Social Security trust fund, Greenspan said, had merely allowed the government to run larger budget deficits. He said that switching to the private accounts would be a way to bolster the nation's low savings rate.


In his prepared testimony, Greenspan did not repeat the cautionary message he sent last month: Creation of the accounts should be done slowly to gauge the impact on financial markets of the increased borrowing that will be needed.


"The one certainty is that the resolution of the nation's unprecedented demographic challenge will require hard choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices," Greenspan said.


Hastert and DeLay talked with reporters after meeting with lawmakers just back from a week spent sampling public opinion on Social Security. DeLay said the session produced "not one negative comment by the members."


At the same time, both he and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist left open the possibility on Tuesday that final action may not be possible this year, and the Texas Republican conceded that opponents of Bush's plans were better organized than supporters.


Both DeLay and Hastert said Republicans are determined to move ahead with Bush's proposals, and several Republicans said they believe the president's national campaigning is slowly raising public awareness of the issue.


"We're still early in the process," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.


Bush and congressional Republicans have consistently sought to coax Democrats into negotiations on Social Security. Democrats have just as insistently resisted, arguing that since Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, they must first present a comprehensive Social Security proposal of their own.


At stake is an issue of surpassing political significance. Democrats contend Bush and Republicans want to cut benefits to pay for privatizing part of the Depression-era program, and have made clear they intend to try and use the issue at the 2006 elections.


Republicans counter their goal is to shore up a program with shaky finances, but also are leery of being maneuvered into taking a series of politically difficult votes unless the result will be legislation that Bush signs and at least some Democrats support.


Bush is to travel to six states over the next two weeks, and many more later as he tries to build public support for a Social Security overhaul.


Echoing White House claims, congressional Republicans said they hope that by the time he is finished, the president will have produced a public groundswell for legislation, forcing at least some Democrats to reconsider their opposition.


Bush has said his plan would guarantee that Social Security benefits would remain unchanged for retirees and workers age 55 and over.


Younger Americans would be allowed to invest a portion of their payroll taxes on their own. In exchange they would receive a lower government benefit than they are now guaranteed, on the assumption that the proceeds of their investments would make up the difference. In addition, though, even younger voters who choose not to establish personal accounts would receive a reduced government benefit under Bush's plan, according to GOP congresisonal officials who have been briefed on the plan.

In addition, though, even younger voters who choose not to establish personal accounts would receive a reduced government benefit under Bush's plan, according to GOP congresisonal officials who have been briefed on the plan.

'unnamed officials'

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy," a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes "bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised.

Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they "will" grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future.

Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up to get those private acounts -- a proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits. He also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would be "owned" by workers only in a very limited sense -- under strict conditions which the President referred to as "guidelines." Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority, wouldn't be able to touch their Social Security nest egg directly, even after retirement, because the government would take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of payments guaranteed for life.

am curious though. What conservative think tank do you think I copied and pasted from here?

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10242

National Center for Policy Analysis

12655 North Central Expressway, Suite 720
Dallas, TX 75243-1739
www.ncpa.org

Established: 1983
President/Executive Director: John C. Goodman
Finances: $5,237,217 (total expenditures in 2001)
Employees: 22
Affiliations: NCPA is a member of the State Policy Network, a network of national and local right-wing think tanks, and of townhall.com, a right-wing internet portal created by the Heritage Foundation.
Publications: NCPA sponsors two of its own syndicated columnists: Pete du Pont (Scripps Howard) and Bruce Bartlett (Creators Syndicate). Bartlett's column appears under contract twice a week in the Washington Times and in the Detroit News.

A right wing think tank with programs devoted to privatization in the following issue areas: taxes, Social Security and Medicare, health care, criminal justice, environment, education, and welfare.

NCPA describes its close working relationship with Congress, saying it "has managed to have more than a dozen studies released by members of Congress - a rare event for a think tank - and frequently members of Congress appear at the NCPA's Capitol Hill briefings for congressional aides."

Right-wing foundations funding includes: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM Foundations

In the early 90s, NCPA created the Center for Tax Studies. NCPA's website describes the inspiration for the Center: "Very few think tank studies are released by members of Congress."

Do you see how silly all this is? Nobody, let alone an unschooled reporter, should be criticizing a plan that doesn't even exist. I would like to think reasonable people can do better than that.