Posted on 03/06/2005 6:47:30 PM PST by Libloather
GOP, Democrats Spar Over Retirement Age
2 hours, 9 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator is proposing to raise the Social Security retirement age from 67 to 68, while Democrats maintain their opposition to the president's plan to overhaul the retirement program with private investment accounts.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's plan would raise the age that retirees could receive full benefits, beginning in 2023. "We are living longer," Hagel said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "So when you look at the total universe of this, I think that makes some sense to extend the age."
But some leading Democrats said they could not support Hagel's plan because he would pay for private accounts by borrowing and increasing the nation's deficit. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., told ABC's "This Week" that would be "a great threat to seniors" because it would raise interest rates.
President Bush plans to travel across the country this week as part of his 60-day push to persuade a skeptical public to support personal retirement accounts. The president's plan would allow workers under age 55 to divert up to 4 percentage points of their Social Security taxes into private stock and bond investment accounts in exchange for lower guaranteed future benefits.
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said that while polls show most Americans don't like the idea, most of the opposition is coming from people over 55 who won't be affected by it. He said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush will try to reassure those older Americans that their benefits won't change.
Bartlett said the White House wants to work with Democrats, but Democrats are vowing to fight unless the president is willing to change his plan to divert Social Security funds into private accounts.
"If the president takes privatization off, if he makes a commitment to the future of Social Security, we're ready to sit down on a bipartisan basis and put everything on the table," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That's the only way to start a good-faith negotiation."
Democrats also object to the president's call for personal accounts because they would not make Social Security solvent. Treasury Secretary John Snow, appearing on ABC, maintained the personal accounts still must be part of the solution.
"They don't in and of themselves bring those lines together," he said. "But we'll never get a fair and equitable solution to the Social Security problem unless personal accounts are an integral part of the solution."
Hagel's plan, which he said is the first Social Security reform bill being introduced in the Senate this year, would allow workers 45 and younger to keep their guaranteed Social Security account, but set up a voluntary program of personal accounts that could supplement their retirement income.
"The president has not laid down a specific plan as to how he's going to get us to solvency," Hagel said. "I do that. It doesn't mean mine's best, but I do it."
Bartlett indicated the president may consider raising the amount of income that is taxed to fund Social Security above the current $90,000 per person. "He says the only thing that's off the table is raising the rate" at which income is taxed, Bartlett said on CNN's "Late Edition."
Also on Sunday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Fox that because of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's support of personal accounts, some people "have seriously questioned the independence of the Fed." She declined to say whether she would describe Greenspan as a "political hack," as Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did last week.
Other Democrats distanced themselves from Reid's comment. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said on CNN that Greenspan is "sometimes very mistaken," but he is an "above-average human." Durbin said he has disagreements with Greenspan, but that calling him a political hack "may have been slightly too strong."
That would allow the government to lower SS taxes while preserving the system...and provide better paid and more enterprising workers more discretionary income to invest as they please WITHOUT forcing the administration to borrow to make up for lost income.
Simple.
It restores the system to what it was meant to be - a safety net for poorer workers who live longer than average.
IMO, Therein lies the evidence of the complete corruption of SS that has existed since before it's incetion. When SS was initiated, the Libs had every expectation of using the funds for non-retirement related purposes on the presumption that relatively little of the money held back would actually be required to service retirees.
Nature and science have played a cruel trick on them, exposing the complete inadequacy of the initial design and we find ourselves today, after our politicians having squandered over 3 Trillion of the fund on the expectation of the convenient demise of beneficiaries, thereby avoiding the inconvenience of paying out benefits, only to find they are actually living long enough to collect some of these promised funds. LMFAO!
Rangel is no longer effective. Not that he ever was. He needs to be taken off the government dole and put out to the pasture.
Raise the retirement age, CUT BENEFITS. The screams of rage from both sides would be music to my ears. :-)
This is really starting to tick me off. Keep pushing that carrot farther out for us baby boomers. I really don't give a damn if we're living longer. That just means I can collect SS for longer and get more back of what I paid in. I'm interested in when I planned on receiving MY Social Security. Me and millions of others like me had better get it as promised and as expected.
Raise the retirement age to 70+.
What about cops, firemen, construction workers, manual laborers, jobs that require great physicality. Think they can do it at 70 years of age? Would you want a 70 year old fireman coming up the ladder to get you out of a burning building. Do you think some 70 year old could be out in the fields picking grapes? Want some 70 year old construction worker up on a roof building a new home? Or would there be exemptions for everyone doing physical labor for a living (also the military). Now, cops, firemen, and the military can retire after 20 years, unless that changes also. What about all the other people who make their living in jobs requiring a lot of physical labor? Got any ideas?
Still slamming the President though.
"The president has not laid down a specific plan as to how he's going to get us to solvency," Hagel said. "I do that. It doesn't mean mine's best, but I do it."
The President hasn't laid down a plan because he realizes anything he says will be met with opposition from the Dems. He wants the Senate to do it's job and structure a bi-partisan plan to fix this problem. His only demand is that it include private accounts. The only reason Dems object is because it produces less reliance on government, less money they get their hands on and because the President suggested it.
Still, I'll give Hagel credit for submitting a proposal. It's a start.
It should have been raised to 70 years ago.
Figures. Greedy SOB's who want to make sure that they rape the young as thouroughly as possible before they die. What's the matter? There are all those "valuable" t-bills sitting in the SSA for you.
No - we should have had the option for private accounts years ago - Ownership is the answer to the Soc Sec situation....Not just raising the age limit (which is just another way for the Gov't to collect more revenue....thus just continuing the fools game which we already have going.....robbing the working peters to pay out the retired Paul's.....raising the age just allows them to rob the working peters for more years).
Allowing private accounts in the answer - The LOSS of wealth that is taking place for the working class and working poor is criminal!! (yet most of these working class are simply to uninformed to know this and the Dem's keep lying to them).
Obviously the moron doesn`t seem to realize the internal contradiction of his statement.
More accurately it shows that there is no such thing as good faith negotiation with a lib.
I agree with you, they're going to push us right to the point where we work until we drop dead, contributing into the system the whole time without ever getting anything back.
Anyone paying into SS in the first place is being screwed.
The only real solution is to get rid of it entirely.
so then it becomes a welfare program for "poor" seniors. and you will see a wave of older americans moving their cash assets offshore or into shelters so they can be "poor" and qualify for the benefits, for which they have paid taxes all their life. I would do it in a minute, so would everyone else.
I was one of those guys. I made it to 60...and only a bad ankle prevented me from continuing. More to the point these public service professions have great retirement programs.
Do you think some 70 year old could be out in the fields picking grapes?...Or would there be exemptions for everyone doing physical labor for a living?
No...and no exceptions for menial jobs. Social Security can't remedy all of life's iniquities. It was meant to aid the long-lived poor in their declining years. It's been successful and that's a great achievement. It shouldn't be asked to do more.
not exactly. someone over 55 simply doesn't have enough years left to work, to accumulate private account money needed for their retirement.
Then, pray tell, why do they care if I can take part of MY MONEY and put it in a private account?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.