NYT: Senate Splits in Test Vote on Social Security

Senate Splits in Test Vote on Social Security
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: March 16, 2005


WASHINGTON, March 15 - President Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security fared poorly on Tuesday in a test vote on Capitol Hill, with the Senate splitting 50 to 50 on a nonbinding measure declaring that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that would require "deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt."

Five Republicans joined the Senate's 44 Democrats and one independent in voting for the resolution, a symbolic effort to demonstrate opposition to Mr. Bush's plan to allow workers to invest part of their taxes in private retirement accounts. Although the measure failed with one vote short of a majority, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who has been a leading opponent of the plan, later said it was a "significant vote."

"I think this is another marker on the road to rejection of the president's plan," Mr. Schumer said. At the same time, the Senate made it clear that Mr. Bush, who has made overhauling Social Security his top domestic priority, has succeeded in turning the retirement program into a pressing national issue. Lawmakers voted unanimously, 100 to 0, to approve another nonbinding measure, one declaring that strengthening Social Security is "a vital national priority."

The votes were part of a string of amendments to a $2.57 trillion budget resolution for 2006 that the Senate is considering. Lawmakers hope to adopt the budget by the end of the week, but doing so will be difficult because the measure is stuffed with contentious issues like reducing spending on entitlement programs like Medicaid, extending Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the next five years and drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16budget.html

That would mean that Cheney could break a tie and that Bush's Social Security would pass. I thought there were more Republicans against this?

if not dead in the water. I have the same question as yours, Hockey Mom: are enough Republicans ready to fall in line, and give Bush whatever he wants re. SS?

the filibuster and Democratic unity.

Even the Republicans that voted for this measure will fall into line, behind the privatizers, when the vote means something.

they wouldn't appear to know "a vital national priority" if it jumped up and bit 'em on the ass.

What kind of dope votes FOR "massive increases" of debt for a social program?

Incredible. The repugs are lost and scared and clueless..

WASHINGTON - Democrats forced the House's first vote of the year on Social Security (news - web sites) Wednesday, but wary Republicans declined to take a stand on the personal accounts at the core of President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan for revamping the Depression-era program.


The 230-202 procedural vote came as Bush told reporters he does not intend to submit formal legislation on the subject. Instead, he encouraged lawmakers "to come back and sit down and start sharing ideas about how to move the process forward" following a two-week Easter recess.


"First bill on the Hill always is `dead on arrival,'" said Bush, who has sought — unsuccessfully so far — to coax Democrats to the bargaining table.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20050317/ap_on_go_co/social_security

It would take trillions to put Bush's plan for private accounts into action and private accounts will NOT cure the ills of SS and secure it's future for our children and grandchildren. What a screwed up farce to transfer our tax $ to Wall street and corporate globalists.

>> In unusually expansive remarks, Bush also sought to dispel the concept of a trust fund.

"A lot of people in America think there is a trust: Your money goes in, the government holds it, and then the government gives your money back when you retire," the president said. "That's just not the way it works."

George W. Bush needs to get himself an attorney. It's illegal not to pay back the Trust (and yes, there is one):

Each obligation issued for purchase by the Trust Funds under this subsection shall be evidenced by a paper instrument in the form of a bond, note, or certificate of indebtedness issued by the Secretary of the Treasury setting forth the principal amount, date of maturity, and interest rate of the obligation, and stating on its face that the obligation shall be incontestable in the hands of the Trust Fund to which it is issued, that the obligation is supported by the full faith and credit of the United States, and that the United States is pledged to the payment of the obligation with respect to both principal and interest.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000401----000-.html