The latest phase of the battle to save Social Security (or, "Some people have hopes and dreams...some people have Ways & Means")
Congress might get to changing Social Security sooner than you might have originally thought. Legislation currently under consideration in the House Ways & Means Committee, if passed would divert all the surplus money that is supposed to be set aside for future Social Security benefits into private investment accounts. This would, naturally, leave a lot less money to future benefits as well as increase the deficit.According to the Post, "[W]alling the Social Security surplus off would balloon the federal deficit and forct hundreds of billions of dollars in new brrowing."
The umbrella group, Americans United to Protect Social Security, is mobilizing against privatization and bringing the battle right to the Ways & Means Committee. The organization is currently working to secure enough Republican support in order to stall the bill. Read more in the Washington Post about the rager over at Ways & Means.
--Nicole Brown, RTV Intern
The umbrella group, Americans United to Protect Social Security, is mobilizing against privatization and bringing the battle right to the Ways & Means Committee. The organization is currently working to secure enough Republican support in order to stall the bill. Read more in the Washington Post about the rager over at Ways & Means.
--Nicole Brown, RTV Intern
posted by Anonymous at 4:03 PM
11 Comments:
How much more moronic could one possibly get?
The bill to put Social Security surpluses into PRAs KEEPS THE MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY and prevents the federal government from stealing it to use for other government spending. It's a perfect check on the growth of government spending.
These PRAs would also only be invested in Treasury Bonds, meaning there would be no risk involved and that they would make slightly more than Social Security itself could offer in terms of return on investment.
First, RTV whines about how the Bush plan would "create giant deficits", even though the current system would create even bigger ones. Then, they whine about how the Social Security surplus should be saved for Social Security itself. Now, somebody offers just a plan to do that- giving people "personal lockboxes", the best way to prevent the government from raiding the surplus- and you people still whine.
Incredible. And people wonder why the youth of America is seen as getting dumber and dumber by the minute.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Worst. Privatization Plan. Ever.
Social Security privatizers have spent months mocking the idea of a Social
Security surplus
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050405-1.html) . Now they are
banking on it to revive their sinking political prospects. Sens. Rick Santorum
(R-PA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) will introduce a bill that
would divert surplus Social Security funds into private accounts
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701442.html)
. It's their worst idea yet. The new privatization plan would require hefty tax
increases, massive program cuts or tacking on billions to the federal deficit.
Even so, it does nothing to improve the solvency of Social Security -- in fact,
it makes things worse. But the bill's sponsors say they'll "address those
concerns later." First, they want to "create momentum and enthusiasm for Bush's
proposed private accounts." The White House said the new idea " is worth taking
a look at
(http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.social19jun19,1,5649050.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines)
." Wake us up when the party's over.
NEW PRIVATIZATION PLAN WOULD EXPLODE FEDERAL DEFICIT: The Wall Street Journal
claims that the proposal (which it calls "political jujitsu") would " create no
new debt for the government. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006844)
" That's not true. Right now, money that is collected from Social Security
payroll taxes that is not needed to pay current Social Security benefits is used
to pay for other government programs. Absent an accompanying package of tax
hikes or program cuts (don't hold your breath) the new privatization plan would
divert all of those funds to private accounts and make our current deficit
problems much worse. For example, using the Social Security surplus to help make
ends meet, the 2006 budget deficit is expected to be around $400 billion
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html) . The
Social Security surplus is expected to be $170 billion (see table S-10
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html) ). So if this new
privatization plan were to be enacted, next year's deficit would skyrocket to
$570 billion. Things get worse over time. In 2009 the new plan would add an
additional $230 billion to the federal deficit.
THE SANTORUM FLIP-FLOP: Santorum's involvement in the budget busting plan is
especially puzzling. In 1999, Santorum introduced a bill that would have
required "all Social Security surpluses ... [to] be dedicated to reducing the
publicly-held Federal debt." Santorum said, "when one considers that the system
is already in fiscal jeopardy, spending this money only aggravates the problem."
Now Santorum has a proposal that would spend the money and aggravate the
problem.
NEW PRIVATIZATION PLAN WOULD WEAKEN TRADITIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY: The new
privatization plan would also weaken traditional Social Security by raiding the
Social Security trust fund. Under the current system, when surplus Social
Security funds are spent on other programs, the government creates a binding
obligation to repay the money at a later date. Because of this trust fund, the
government will be able to pay Social Security benefits at current levels until
at least 2052 (http://www.cbpp.org/6-14-04bud.htm) . The new privatization plan
would eliminate all future contributions to the trust fund, undermining the
program's long-term solvency. If the program becomes insolvent, the government
will be forced to make deep cuts in guaranteed benefits. Of course, that's what
all these privatization plans are really about.
THE REAL GOAL -- PERMANENT PRIVATE ACCOUNT CARVE-OUTS: The use of the Social
Security surplus to fund private accounts is just a gimmick. The real goal
remains the same: finding a way to divert payroll taxes from a guaranteed
benefit to private accounts. DeMint explicitly told the WSJ that if his plan was
enacted into law, "Congress would be compelled to find a way ... to ensure
their continuation after payroll tax surpluses dried up.
(http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006844) " That means diverting money
from Social Security payroll taxes, further eroding the guaranteed benefit.
erik,
I got that schpiel in an email... from a far-left group.
I don't know why erik is so against not being able to invest his own retirement money? Why do you have that much trust in the government to take care of you? Do you not want the responsibility?
I actually got it from the center for american progress's webstie. They are a progressive institute not a far left wing organization.
progressive = far left
You mean...the left wing echo chamber?!?
I love it how Erik blasts anyone who cites anything from the right as just being part of the "right wing echo chamber," and then the blind fool refers to his own leftist sources as "progressive institutes" not "left wing organizations."
All hail Erik, the master of doublespeak.
I love it how the left assumes the excess money taken in for Social security should be earmarked for other programs. Had we invested that money from the get go, solvency would not be an issue right now. Instead, we earmark it for other programs unrelated to SS and wonder why we are having issues with solvency.
They are against privitizing Social Security? So why oppose Bush's proposal. The government will keep control of the personal accounts, they aren't exactly private. However, the individual simply has more control over their OWN money they are required to pay into the system. At least they can pass on their own personal account as inheritence or even make a higher rate of return on their money that they can actually see, rather then just pay into a system and hope they receive adequate enough checks later on. But will they ever really see all the money they have paid into the system after all those years? I hope our government modifies the system, I'd appreciate it.
David Redmond, 19, NY
anonymous = idiot
Look up the meaning of progressive. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. Progressivism and populism is where the grassroots is pushing the Democratic party towards. Reading and researching for yourself is the key knowledge. Not repeating what others say in the right echo chamber.
First - privatization is not just an argument about retirement. Social Security is so much more than a retirement benefit. One third of those receiving benefits are not retired workers -- they are disabled workers, widows, orphans... etc.
Second - Social Security is the nation's most successful anti-poverty program. In 70 years it has always delivered benefits on time and in full. It is a MODEL government program - plain and simple.
Third - anyone who would actually say that having a Social Security Trust Fund invested in Treasury Securities = government stealing it to use for other government spending CANNOT SAY that we should have private accounts invested in Treasury Securities... It is the same dollar going to the government in the same vehicle either way. As the Heritage Foundation says private accounts are not going to change the spending habits of the government.
(that's just a false argument)
Fourth - the current system is sustainable until 2053 -- almost half a century away. Crisis? I don't think so.
Post a Comment
<< Home