SOCIAL SECURITY: THE REAL RISKS

New York Post ^ | October 20, 2004 | PETER FERRARA

[OESY]

John Kerry's bitter denunciations of President Bush over Social Security are craven, opportunistic and false. Worse yet, Kerry's approach to the program's crisis risks disaster.

Kerry charges that Bush secretly plans to cut benefits or hike Social Security taxes to fund his "scheme" to privatize the program. In fact, Bush has spelled out seven principles of reform, including no tax hikes or benefit cuts. Kerry's claim that Bush's plan will cost trillions is another canard.

Consider just one plan — which the White House has stated is consistent with all the president's principles: ...the legislation recently introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.).

The bill would allow workers the freedom to choose to shift roughly what they now pay in payroll taxes in their FICA box each paycheck to personal, individually owned, savings and investment accounts. Workers would choose investments by picking a fund managed by a major private investment firm, from a list officially approved for this purpose and regulated for safety and soundness, similarly to the operation of the Federal employee Thrift Savings Plan.

Benefits payable from the tax-free accounts would substitute for a portion of current Social Security benefits, based on the degree to which workers exercised the account option over their careers. Otherwise, there would be no change in currently promised Social Security benefits — not only for today's seniors, or workers nearing retirement, but for anyone in the future.

Anyone who chooses to stay in the current, old Social Security framework would receive the benefits promised under current law. Survivors and disability benefits would continue unchanged.

Moreover, the bill maintains Social Security's safety net by including a Federal guarantee that workers with personal accounts would receive at least as much as promised by Social Security under current law....

[OESY]

Peter Ferrara is a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation, and Director of the the Club for Growth's Social Security Project.

[KantianBurke]

"the legislation recently introduced"

I stopped reading after that part. This has as much chance of becoming law as Rangel's idiot draft bill. No way this gets through the Senate regardless of a Bush re-election victory.

[ops33]

No matter what John Kerry and the Dems say about Bush changing Social Security, President Bush cannot do anything to change the current system. While he may propose and support legislation that makes changes to the current system, only Congress can make any changes to Social Security.

[sweetiepiezer]

17% Medicare Increase

Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to
help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium
increase - the biggest in history"? That ad is a stoke of genius on
Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.
It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue.
As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was
mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton,
voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into
effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to
reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton
administration.
Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people.
Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts!

[grounhog]

In the pres. election of 1996 my mother was afraid if dems. didn't win she would lose her social security.
My mom is no longer with us, but when I hear the commie slime bring up the same CRAP to scare other members of the greatest generation it makes me sick....

[LRoggy]

Anyone who has not read Peter Ferrara's writeups on Social Security are missing something big. In December 2003, the Social Security Administration's Chief Actuary actually reviewed and scored the plan Rep. Ryan and Senator Sununu introduced. The Chief Actuary actually blessed the plan as solving the problem. Unfortunately, the MSM totally ignored this.

Go to IPI.org and go to the Social Security section and look for Peter Ferrara's writings.

[LRoggy]

Anyone who has not read Peter Ferrara's writeups on Social Security are missing something big. In December 2003, the Social Security Administration's Chief Actuary actually reviewed and scored the plan Rep. Ryan and Senator Sununu introduced. The Chief Actuary actually blessed the plan as solving the problem. Unfortunately, the MSM totally ignored this.

Go to IPI.org and go to the Social Security section and look for Peter Ferrara's writings.

[AuntB]

Did you happen to hear anything about ONE BILLION dollars in overpayments by the SSA last year to people on disability that were working or did not qualify to get the benefits? I saw a tape ticker at the bottom of TV news yesterday, but haven't been able to find it? The SSA is a mess, and now they're going to give illegals SS benefits........We need to stop the insanity in the SSA. That would be worthwhile reform for a start.

[AuntB]

Don't email me personally again. Your question was what did my comment have to do with Social Security reform? Surely you joke.

You are rude. Would you like me to post your comments so everyone else can see them?

[Lizavetta]

I believe BOTH PARTIES allowing unchecked illegal immigration to continue is happening because they hope all those extra taxpaying bodies will keep SS afloat for a little longer.

Am I wrong?

[Doe Eyes]

While he may propose and support legislation that makes changes to the current system, only Congress can make any changes to Social Security.

Nor can the President increase Defense spending or cut taxes.

[k2blader]

Otherwise, there would be no change in currently promised Social Security benefits — not only for today's seniors, or workers nearing retirement, but for anyone in the future.

I don't believe this can happen without tax increases. The money has to come from somewhere, especially as there will be more and more "retired" people drawing on SS.

[OESY]

I think you are absolutely correct that it is one of the factors. Many of the European countries with aging or declining populations rely on immigration also to sustain their welfare state benefits.

Other factors might be the political downside with civil rights groups and growing immigrant groups (not yet neutralized by the activism of anti-illegal immigration groups), the harm that it would do to our economy to remove workers who in some cases pay taxes (though most would concede a net expenditure) and, finally, the difficulty of actually stopping the inflow, rounding them up, and deporting them; that is, unless we build an impenetrable barrier like Israel's wall which would be rather expensive, even if effective, since offshore islands, ports, the Canadian border, and various forms of transportation into the country are also porous.

[Fledermaus]

Democrats vote for these type of things PRECISLEY to use them against the GOP.

And if the GOP was against the bill at the time, they say "the GOP doesn't care because they won't support this bill"...etc.

It's the exact same thing with the flu vaccine issue. Hillary pushed through a bill FORCING the price of the flu vaccine to a government regulated amount and said any Republican that DIDN'T vote for the bill "for the children" was evil and they wanted the poor and middle class to pay high prices for the flu vaccine, blah, blah, blah. The GOP pointed out that the bill would REDUCE the amount of vaccine produced in the U.S. because it would not be cost effective. Thus Hillary and her ilk say, "the Republicans care more about the profit of big drug companies".

Of course, what the GOP said came true. And do the Democrats pay the price for their short sightedness? NO! The Dems SLAM the GOP again for "failing to provide enough flu vaccine".

Folks, this is calculated on their part and IT MUST STOP AT ALL COSTS!!!!! Even if it means another civil war.