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."
And since the poor die YOUNGER than the rich your characterization makes even LESS sense than before.
Also, three counties in Texas have had such a plan since 1981 which is plenty long enough to conclude that such a way exists.
They opted out in 1981 and oddly enough have never even felt the need to CONSIDER opting back in.
While the US Government actively promoted SS as a promise (contract), in actuality it is and always was an entitlement (welfare). All your payments are taxes, not contributions, even though they were called that for many years. And, finally if congress says so, you are not entitled to zip. They lied to you.
Here's a great take on this subject from today's (Sunday March 6) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05065/466636.stm
An excerpt:
"Retirement is an idea whose time came, flared for two generations and is now dying rapidly. Rising in its place is an ancient idea. It's called living."
And:
"And before we mourn the demise of retirement, we need to remember that for most of the history of Western culture, and for about two-thirds of American history, nearly everyone worked until just before they died."
Just a great perspective on this whole subject.
Of course not. Now is the time to take action to solve the SS problem. We have trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities, which will destroy our economy, including a loss of jobs if we don't develop a permanent solution for the entitlement programs. More than 45 million Americans are now collecting SS checks (retirement, disabiltiy, and survivor benefits.)
Eventually, I hope we move to total privitization of SS. We also need to fix Medicare, which is even in worse shape by multiples of two to three times the problem that SS represents.
That sounds great. I hope you make it. I will probably be in the traffic jab at 75 trying to make it until I'm 80 and can retire. They're just going to keep on raising the age and those of us under 40 will keep on being like Charlie Brown and the football.
The age cap for full benefits is currently 67, depending on when you were born. Congress would have to approve any increase in the age. There is some talk about eliminating or raising the age of 62 for reduced benefits.
The police unions don't turn people away for jobs. Police officers are hired by municipalities be it towns, villages, cities, counties and states. Unions don't hire or set staff levels. Police unions are happy when the size of the force is increased. The direct opposite of what you are saying. And how is the pay as you say, way way way beyond what people in equivalent jobs in the private sector make. Tell me, whats an equivalent job to a police officer in the private sector.?
Thanks for info, I should have searched for the info.
Being lazy, I guesstimated it.
This suggests that the retirement age should be 70 or 72.
For those of you so anxious to raise the retirement age on Social Security, remember this:
1. You have paid into this plan all your life; it's your money that is being deferred and denied. Most baby boomers will have paid into the fund $100,000 to $150,000 by age 65.
2. At age 65, you have an actuarial lifespan of 15 more years. Current law pushing baby boomers to age 67 means means losing two of those years of payback, effectively a 13% cut in your total SS benefits. Pushing the age to 68 means a 20% cut in total payouts.
3. Pushing your retirement to age 68 or 70 sounds good, but in an econmomy marked by high job turnover and folding companies, try getting a job at age 65.
4. If you have the misfortune of dying before those 15 years are up, you lose the balance of all that money you paid in.
That is why reform and personal accounts are so important. You can start drawing out on your schedule, and it's your money. If you die early, the family gets it, not the government and President Hillary Clinton or Majority Leader Reid or Speaker Pelosi. Remember, Republicans won't be in power forever.
If we ended our free trade agreements with China our businesses would be screwed in the international marketplace. Like the engineers I mentioned, there is only so much you can do with 60k engineers a year.. versus China's 350k a year and growing.
A quibble. It only changes the payout numbers a few points. You still lose almost 13% with a 2 year deferral to 67.
"which will destroy our economy, including a loss of jobs if we don't develop a permanent solution for the entitlement programs"
We could take the European 'solution'... Import tens of millions of aggresive young muslim men to work for us.. As long as they promise not to get rid of our entitlements.
"Private employers should be able to higher and fire who ever they want for whatever reason they want. The only exception to that is if in the private employment contract that was signed by both parties forbids termination later because of something like age."
That's some of the dumbest crapola I have ever seen here. Can "private employers" fire someone because he's black, Catholic, Italian, etc? Of course not. The Civil Rights code protects them against that sort of discrimination. Guess what: It also disallows firing anyone because of their age.
I already whacked ran15, but you are more right than you may know. The US Civil Rights Code prevents employers from firing anyone because of his age.
work in a hospital under constant stress to 68?....I think not....
what will happen is more people will opt for dissability retirement .....
"I know that in my case, my property taxes and home owners insurance has more than quadrupled in the last 13 years."
Gee, where do you live, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. I do, and may be forced out, because of rising prop. taxes.
Raising the retirement age is Socialist Speak for WE NEED MORE DEAD AMERICANS TO FUND OUR FORCED FRAUD.
SS is voluntary? Wow, that's news to me. I'm opting out tomorrow.
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.