Jim Clyburn Outlines Democratic Party's 2005 Priorities

In yesterday's Democratic party weekly address, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina outlined the party's 2005 priorities. Jim Clyburn is the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Among the challenges Clyburn said were facing the United States were protecting "Social Security, lifting children out of poverty, expanding health insurance coverage and making college education more affordable."

Clyburn "called Social Security a safety net that pays more benefits to children than any other program." In a thread below, I discussed the subject of Social Security Survivor's benefits in the comments section. My contention being that abolishing the Social Security program does away with this vital safety net for widows and children. As I have first hand experience with this aspect of the Social Security program, I have grave concerns for children like my own in the future who may lose a parent at an early age.

"To jeopardize the solvency of this resoundingly successful program by gambling Social Security benefits on the stock market is a risk that President Bush and this Congress should resolve to avoid," Clyburn said. It was a reference to Bush's proposal that younger workers be allowed to divert part of their Social Security taxes into private retirement investment accounts.

Clyburn also said underfunding the No Child Left Behind law while saddling children with deficits "violates the basic tenets of our nation's values."

And, he said, "we need to make a college education more affordable, not cut student loans and Pell grants."

Clyburn also called on President Bush and lawmakers to "make a New Year's resolution to give adequate equipment to troops in Iraq."

"Our soldiers should never want for proper equipment and accurate intelligence. Their patriotism and sacrifice should never be doubted or compromised."

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=182

I'm glad to hear Clyburn standing up for core Democratic party values, and I hope his colleagues follow suit.

n/t

If the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we will stop telling the truth about them.~Adalai Stevenson

This is where I'd like the debate to go in the next few years. This is where we win.

Well we tried to talk about these issues during the election but they were overshadowed by the Swift Liars, Iraq and whole lot of other crap!

...point out lies & "flip-flops" (and use those words) that the GOP has told concerning these issues.

Otherwise, there really is no contrast, all Bush/media has to say is "calm down, we are working on all those things as we speak."

There must be an effort to show the lying & insincerity concerning the issues, otherwise, Republicans/media can easily gloss over or even co-opt all these ideas.

Clyburns "talk" will fail unless they do somthing fresh & new- like FIGHTING the Republicans-making sure people KNOW that the the GOP/media has ZERO credibility, and that someone else can do the job HONESTLY.

We need to continue to point out that the GOP and the media have zero crdibility and in the same instance get the word out, what the Democratic leaders are saying and doing, because that is rarely discussed in the news.

Nothing about Iraq except "..our patriotic troops".
Nothing about the bankruptcy the nation is headed for.
Nothing about Global Warming or the environment.
Nothing about corporatism.
Nothing about the rest of the world.

Just the same warmed over "safe" tactics that lose elections.

that No Child Left Behind was a bad idea to begin with and giving it better funding would be pouring chocolate sauce over garbage.

no matter where it comes from. NCLB has many flaws but the biggest is the funding or lack of. A lot of schools are not up to standards and have not been for years. The premise behind NCLB might have helped some if they had given the schools the money.

I'm not so sure that social security deform is such a 'winning' issue. The fact is that the market has consistently outperformed social security since its inception, and even at its worst performance (if you don't count the dot.com crash) the market did better than SS. If you look specifically at blue chips, they've never done worse in a single year (again, not counting the dot.com failure) in the aggregate than SS. I'm not saying that the deform should take place, because I don't think it should. What I am saying is that there are persuasive counter-arguments to the position that substantially weaken it.

everything in the "Tech Stocks" because that was where the money was being made. And, your $200 highflying stocks (Enron/Broadcom/Corning/Global Crossing)..whatever stock went to $l0.00 a share?

Compare that to a system where you put money in every month and you are guaranteed a certain income because the Govt. matches you and no matter what the market does (9/11 Disaster/Bubble or outright fraud) you still will be able to pay your bills, and have a roof over your head.

There's no way the Stock market can ever provide stability. And markets don't always go up. Despite what you've been told. One has to have bought the "right stocks and been a good picker" to have the diversity to withstand a crash. Most folks can't make those decisions. They would be chasing after whatever stock broker gave a good line or they would invest in Enron and Lucent.

Putting money away in a safe place is always best. And folks aren't even saving for retirement now...without SS many folks have nothing.

doesn't take away from the central comparison between the market and social security. My point is not that ss needs to be privatized. My point is that there is a fairly cogent counter-argument that weakens it as a Democratic flagship issue. I think that the 'non-war' in Iraq and the unbelievable deficit make better issues to go against the republicans on.

a good "counter argument" in the way most voters Young and Middle and Old can put into perspective. :shrug: Is that what you are saying?

If so...then I agree with you. It's important for our "Legislators" to point out the pitfalls as well as the "Positives" on this argument about "SS"

I have been around long enough to watch "the Stock Market" and to see the "Pitfalls" having many relatives both young and old...I think the discussion of the "TRUE" Pitfalls and Positives isn't being done with the Bush MSM Lockdown.

And...I must admit that my "longer time on this earth" makes me more PRO
"SS" than not...even though I've been invested for many years in the Wall Street Stock Market. Some of my family have chased the Internets and are looking for Gov't Bailouts hoping that Ken Lay get's his time in Prison...the rest they sort of feel guilty about in the Late 90's Bubble and feel it's "THEIR FAULT." But, they are living right now on "SS" because their "play money" was in the late 90's Market." They felt their "SS" allowed them to play..and they are wiped out looking at Nortel, Lucent, EMC and the rest as huge losses..but they can still "vacation in Florida," in a "rental rather than their own second home."

Me...on the other hand, being younger is scared to death of Bush's proposal..because neither I nor my hubby got a good Pension from our years of working for the Corporations...we only have those 401-K's...and we don't have the ability to invest beyond what our Corporate Board tells us we should do. We also have individual stocks which we monitor.

But...we don't have any friends who "like us" can take the time and effort to monitor the Web and talk with "Brokers" about where we should go next. And we lost some money (big money) with the only "outside Investment Advisor" we ever used who put us into Tech Stocks at the Height of the Bubble. We were very cautious and only put teeny money in...but we got rid of this guy who steered us wrong right after the crash. (Incidentally the Bubble Stocks he recommended are still way below what we bought at on his recommendation ...now five years out..and this guy was HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

SO...my conclusion from "experience" is that I am thankful that FDR and the NEW DEAl put in place some stuff that will "Save me from myself." :shrug:

I don't want to go into this so much...but I love trying to explain why allowing "SS Privatization" will..in the end..be nothing but a "Boodoggle for Wall St. and the Bush Crowd." :shrug: again

s

the one time I invest a small amount I lost it all. And the investment was made on the advice of someone knowledged. LOL.

my perspective...but..believe me what you say is TRUE....

We will all be at the mercy of the "Wolves" on "Wall Street" if we allow the dismantling of SS...but the Bushies and their ilk will be happy. It's more folks they can steal money from that they don't care about...

They figure the folks who get swindled will "fall back on their church to support them." Like "LOL's THERE!"

More Fundie Christians into the churches because folks are starving...is not my idea of a "Democracy," but it's the Bushies idea...I think. :shrug:

I'm very distressed about this issue. My daughter has received SS survivor benefits since she was 3. I am looking at what this will do to other kids like her. It's not likely to affect her, because she only has 2 1/2 more years, but I care about others like her who it might affect in the future.

There are other reasons that SS was implemented, besides retirement. SS also pays benefits to widows and children when a spouse dies and disability. If a spouse dies young, the family is liekly to be screwed by privatization.

78% of the population called guaranteeing SS benefits a priority.

As for the issue of returns; in the first place, SS is all about security, not about maximizing return. You can still invest your discretionary money as you please (and i think democrats should propose legislation to encourage private retirement accounts; supplementary to, not instead of, the basic guaranteed minimum SS gives.)

Secondly, there are ways to increase return while preserving security. You could auction rights to invest some of the trust fund money, for example, to people who are willing to guarantee some minimum return on it. You're paying them some of your return to take on the risk.

Thirdly, the Bush proposal for privatizing does not in fact call for individual investment; it calls for government to handle the investment until the individual accounts are large enough to be attractive to fund managers, at which point you are allowed to select from a short list of gov't-approved managers (the number i've heard/seen most often is five.) This represents a massive centralization of the economy and gov't interference in the stock market.

Fourthly, the projections by the Bush SS commission suggest that even with the return on investment, overall benefits would diminish over time - at least, if you use the same growth projections that they use to make the case that SS is in trouble in the first place. Part of the reason is that it is much, much more expensive to administer millions upon millions of 'accounts'.

Fifthly, the reported return doesn't include the fact that the money has been invested; it's been a major source of funding for the gov't for quite some time. Congress has invested all that money. You may have your doubts about the quality of return on that investment, but why would you expect them to do better as investors in the market?

And sixthly, sure the market generally increases in the long run. That doesn't help people who retire or get wiped out during the downturns. You've privatized risk, which is counter to the entire notion of a social security.

that the White House proposal to "fix social security" has nothing to do with the problem he claims to be fixing.

Changing the way distant future recipients pay in and accumulate an account will not change the money due in the near future to baby boomers, in fact it means the government must come up with more money out revenues not less.

If we need more money, let's raise the cut off point for paying in. Seems simple to me.

KL

I think they have talked about raising the cout off point fo rpaying in. Raising the taxes on the wealthy would help again too.

and repeat and repeat until everyone hears it. You can't just say it once and go on we must learn to hammer like the regressives do.

Respect the Troops
War is NOT the Answer

We must frame and repeat frame and repeat

KL

...as best we can.

would rather vote strong and wrong, than weak and right.

Damn, if we had a STRONG candidate with our right issues...we could win.
But this "statesmanlike" crap, in an era when no one pays attention to politeness anymore...esp. the GOP...is useless.

I'm thinking Dean would be a real shot in the arm if he became head of the DNC. And, Dems need to recruit some trainers to teach them how to be blunt in terms of their views and how the other side is full of crap.