Cool Reception on Capitol Hill to Social Security Plan (NYT)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/politics/04cong.html?ex=1108098000&en=be5179b3137db26c&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

Cool Reception on Capitol Hill to Social Security Plan
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and CARL HULSE

Published: February 4, 2005

ASHINGTON, Feb. 3 - President Bush's plan for overhauling Social Security, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, met with a cool reception Thursday on Capitol Hill, where some influential Republicans expressed skepticism and all but one of the Senate's 44 Democrats vowed to oppose any proposal that increases the federal deficit.

snip

At the same time, two Republicans certain to play a role in shaping any Social Security legislation, Representative Jim McCrery of Louisiana and Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, expressed deep reservations about Mr. Bush's idea of allowing workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts, though for different reasons.

Mr. McCrery, the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Social Security, said Mr. Bush's idea of diverting payroll taxes left Republicans open to attacks that they were weakening the program from Democrats and advocates for retirees, including AARP, a powerful group whose support helped pass Medicare prescription drug legislation in 2003.

snip

Ms. Snowe, a moderate Republican who serves on the Senate Finance Committee and who represents a state with a sizable elderly population, said she had "serious concerns" about the idea, and strongly favored continuing the current system in which retirees receive a guaranteed payout every month.

"It has worked exceptionally well for 70 years," she said. "I think it's in our national interest."

story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/politics/04cong.html?ex=1108098000&en=be5179b3137db26c&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

See at www.AARP.org/bulletin Mr. Bush's reform is nothing but a give away of our taxes to Wall Street leaving our needy with no recourse. Again Social Security means just that. We choose to take on the needs of the disabled and elderly as part of our own journey.

We are not willing to put our country into a caste system.

I just can't believe this "reform" has any chance of succeeding. Its premises are demonstrably false, its details deliberately vague and confusing, its true motives painfully clear. That it is presided over by people glaringly not in need of future Social Security benefits of any kind makes it all the more appalling.

It's encouraging that the Democrats, in the Senate at least, are standing firm and tall. Social Security, big program that it is, stands for even more: the commitment of one generation to see another as well as its own less fortunate members through their lives, and the commitment of our government to stand behind us all no matter what.

May the strength of this commitment, as well as its defenders, defeat those whose false reasoning and deceptive tactics provide a thin veil for greed, selfishness, and inhumanity toward the disadvantaged. We'll soon see what America really stands for.

the one Dem Senator who supports this idea is 'Holy Joe' Liberman.

:puke:

wouldn't sign the letter they sent to Bush on SS. Don't have a link; just read it on DU today somewhere.

GOP Express Doubt on Bush Soc. Sec. Plan

By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans are expressing doubt that President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan for personal accounts in Social Security (news - web sites) can win approval, saying lawmakers fear the political consequences of voting major change to the popular retirement program.


Some suggested that Bush jettison the central feature of his plan, which is to let younger workers divert part of their Social Security payroll taxes to private retirement accounts.


"Politically speaking, right now it's probably not doable," Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., said Thursday, citing lack of Democratic support.

snip

"I've talked to some of my colleagues and they're panic-stricken," said Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., who said he welcomes a serious debate over the sweeping changes Bush outlined in his State of the Union address Wednesday.


Two House Republicans with years of expertise on Social Security offered an alternate plan, saying the Bush proposal was too risky politically. They suggested bolstering the program with money from general revenues rather than the payroll tax.

snip

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_go_co/social_security


Translation.... they would be "voted out of office" if Diebold is not used.

In his State of the Union speech, Bush didn't spell out those costs. He gave some details about how private accounts would work, but his advisers acknowledge that they would not solve Social Security's financial problems.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=716&e=21&u=/usatoday/20050203/ts_usatoday/whybushwantspersonalretirementaccounts

So...if it does not... why in the hell do it when you can't claim a "better program".

Would Bush's plan give me more in benefits than the current system?

That's unclear. It would depend on whether the performance of the investments over time would exceed the benefit reductions necessary to bring the traditional system into balance. Under a variety of scenarios, the benefit cuts could be dramatic, but administration officials also say that the current level of benefits is unsustainable in any case. Workers can choose to stay in the traditional system, but the White House has said those benefits will be reduced by an unknown amount.

What if the stock market swoons and my total benefit is below the poverty level?

The administration has not addressed that scenario. Under some proposals, there can be a poverty benefit. But at the same time, officials do not want to reward bad investment choices.

Wouldn't creating individual accounts require more government debt?

Yes. If the accounts are funded out of existing payroll taxes, as the president proposed, then creating the accounts would require Social Security to tap the trust funds even sooner. That is because the system would need to keep paying current beneficiaries, while also funding nascent accounts for people who probably will not retire for decades. The borrowing costs of Bush's plan would be more than $1 trillion in the first 10 years of a fully phased plan, and then $3.5 trillion in the next 10 years. The White House believes the costs will even out over the next 75 years -- that any debt incurred will be balanced by gains later -- but in the short term, the country's debt burden would rise. The costs would really begin to soar about the time Social Security is projected to begin withdrawing money from the trust funds.


snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61414-2005Feb3_2.html