GOP Senator Under Fire from the Right

Human Events Online ^ | March 29, 2005 | Robert Bluey

[clintonh8r]

A Republican shouldn't be promoting a de facto tax increase in order to sustain what is essentially a socialist program.

[Mase]

Here's Graham's proposals. See if they warrant such an awful attack dog campaign by Club for Growth
________________________

Graham's proposals are more about continued government control over our money and additional tax increases than they are about personal control of our money. Even though he offers one option that seems to mirror Bush's proposal it's hard to tell what the specifics are from the linked article. More specifics would be helpful.

The Club for Growth and other Conservatives are upset with him mostly because of his support for lifting the cap from $90,000. Social Security has morphed from a safety net into the biggest Ponzi scheme in our economy and his advocacy of additional taxes to perpetuate this mess should earn him the scorn of all Conservatives.

I am for anything that wrests control of our money from the government and reduces the percentage of our economy managed by the government. The stock market has returned an average of about 6.6%, adjusted for inflation, since 1900 while Social Security has returned less than 2% since its inception. There should be no argument over the viability of personal accounts - at least not from Conservatives.

The Club for Growth made no misleading statements in their criticism of Graham. Whether they will have any impact remains to be seen.

[ncpatriot]

I thought Graham was friends with Hillary.

[kingattax]

he can only have one friend ?

[Mase]

Well, maybe not completely. But how much of the stock market will the govt. control under this plan? 20%? 30%? Who controls the chosen stocks? Are overseas stocks forbidden?
_________________

Under Bush's plan I control my investments, not the government. I believe the plan being talked about gives people 3 or 4 choices offering varying mixes of stocks and bonds. I also read where people would be allowed to make changes to their allocations once a year.

I only have 5 choices with my 401K. Of course, the current SS system gives me no choices and if I die before I reach the govt. sanctioned retirement age I get nothing and my heirs get nothing.

Private accounts as you suggest (just give us our money back) would never be politically palatable which is truly unfortunate. Look at the accrued value of 12.4% of your SS taxable income over your working lifetime, growing at 5-6% per year, and you'll get sick.

[7.62 x 51mm]

US Sen Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC). 'Nuff said, IMO. Dump the lowlife.

[Rocky]

South Carolina? You sure he's not from Vermont?

[festus]

Lets donate him to the democrats.

[SC Swamp Fox]

South Carolina Ping

Add me to the ping list. Remove me from the ping list.

[Conservative Goddess]

A vested property right in the accounts is a start, even if we are restricted to investing in government bonds. At least we'd have a claim to the underlying assets. I would prefer complete and total privatization, including privately managed accounts similar to IRA's....with a concommitant starving of the Social Security beast, but that will take time. I really think the unstated objective of GWB's private accounts is to do just that, wean the Gen Xer's from SS by allowing them to invest. The fact that his proposed framework did nothing to deal with the 'solvency issue' should tell you that his plan is for SS to naturally wither and die over the course of several years....and that's a good thing.

Let's take what we can get, and when the gen xer's see the difference in returns, SS will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

[kabar]

Removing Social Security's Tax Cap on Wages Would Do More Harm Than Good

[kabar]

If we have to have a social securiy system, then everyone who earns money has to pay for it. I don't think there should be any limit at the top end for payroll taxes. I think that everyone should pay the same proportion of payroll to the system. Otherwise, it is a regressive tax that hits disproportionately at the bottom of the income scale.

You are talking about income redistribution. Would you apply the same standard to income tax, which is graduated so those at the top end pay more? If the cap were removed, would you increase the benefits for those paying more? Did you know that in computing SS benefits, the system is already weighted to giving the lowest income earners more benefits than others? Do you realize that the cap has been raised every year since 1971, e.g., the cap in 2000 was $76,200 and today it is $90,000? Contribution and Benefit Base

Why is it that those who earn the least end up paying the most?

Simply not true from eiher an absolute basis or percentage basis.