GOP, Democrats Spar Over Retirement Age

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."

When SS began, it began benefits at 65 as life expectancy was 63. So lets make it 79 or 80.

Ahh, but "life expectancy" is different for black men than for white women, and different for smokers than non-smokers.... Hey! Let's say that the "life expectancy" for male smokers is 58 and start SS benefits for us I mean them at 60!

allow corporations to engage in the kinds of employment policies you are advocating - and they will elect Democrats to office to regulate those abuses. the fastest way to socialism in america, is allowing the corporate sector to be completely unchecked.

"It restores the system to what it was meant to be - a safety net for poorer workers who live longer than average."

That's actually a pretty uneducated guess at what social security is supposed to be. Social security was SPECIFFICALLY designed to cover ALL Americans, not just poor Americans. This is why the rich have ALWAYS received benefits. FDR did NOT want it to be a welfare program.

It's designed to be an insurance program and supplemental retirement program to cover all workers. Here's a simple idea, why don't we take that SS SURPLUS and use it to cover the transition costs to personal accounts rather than Congress stealing it to use for the general fund?

Simple.

PS from FDR's time to 1983, workers could opt out of SS. Three Texas counties did just that with the predictable result that their program for disability and retirement is better than what the rest of America has right now.

How getting back to that ORIGINALLY available option is any attack on FDR's memory, I have no idea, but then again it's not meant to make sense now is it?

the kind of system you are advocating, only works in places like China - where the government enforces workplace policies on the people at the point of a gun and under threat of a forced labor prison term. it won't work in a democracy, because once you piss enough people off, they simply vote to correct the system. allow, as in your original comment, corporations to conduct en masse layoffs of workers over the age of 50 and watch what happens. any politician standing up to support that policy under the "property rights" mantra, is going to get tossed out instantly. capitalism in a democracy must be conducted fairly.

Sounds good to me because of life expectancy going up.

This is what is wrong with SS. The politicians can change the benefits any time they want. In 1983 they changed the age for full retirement from 65 to 67 along with raising the FICA tax and indexing the cap. The sooner individuals can control their own retirement funds, the better.

You are probably right. Just like we had to put in a huge new health care entitlement or the democrats would have probably won in 2004.

All true. So what we have is death by 50 little cuts instead of a few big ones. It seems that no matter what we do the electorate pushes for more socialism. Even if we put in more socialism ourselves, which sort of defeats the purpose.

I don't know of a democracy on earth that isn't growing government each year, and pushing a leftist social agenda.

Its why I'm a republican instead of a democrat though. A republic is a constituional nation, where the constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not whoever gets 51% of the vote.

Yes police unions do fight to limit the supply all over the nation. If you don't believe that you must be a police officer or seriously delluded.

Police unions have always encouraged the hiring of new officers.This would only strengthen the unions by increasing the number of officers. Secondly, why would anyone want to take a job where their body would break down, without the incentive of a twenty year retirement?

Here's a simple idea, why don't we take that SS SURPLUS and use it to cover the transition costs to personal accounts rather than Congress stealing it to use for the general fund?

How will Congress replace the lost revenue? Borrowing more money through Treasury Bonds. The additional borrowing will increase the national debt, which means that we will have to pay more to service the debt annually.

Approximately 17 cents out of every dollar of total tax revenue collected is immediately used merely to pay the burgeoning interest on the Federal debt. This is now surpassing the costs for our entire defense establishment, and it is exceeded only by the revenues needed to fund the total Medicare and Medicaid programs.

These are no "tranisition" costs. We are prepaying now thereby decreasing the total unfunded liability later. Not to worry. The SS surplus starts declining in 2008 and will be gone in 2018. Then SS will stop being a cash cow and become a drain on the economy and the budget.

We need to reduce the defined benefits portion of SS and allow personal accounts to make up the difference

"coal miners, construction workers, etc" are born investment geniuses. All they need is a little push from the government - like reducing their Social Security benefits - to achieve their potential....you really believe that?

I think you are right. Its ominous that the rising powers in the world, the Chicoms and the extremist Mohammedans can enact change that we couldn't dream of.

Saudi Arabia for example where a lot of these ultra rich muslim financiers are coming from, has no income tax, no corporate tax, and no capital gains tax.

The people of Hong Kong had mass demonstrations when they found out the Chicoms were building nuclear reactors near their Island. The Chicoms responded by building additional nuclear reactors under their city.

Doctors, lawyers, factory workers, police etc.. are always trying to organize to limit supply in their profession in China. Their government has literally executed the leadership labor people.

So now we look and in 1999 China graduated 120k engineers, and in 2004, 350k. Meantime America graduated 60k in 1999 and 55k in 2004. Our businesses are simply getting wiped out by their competitiveness.

Its funny then that they turn away so many people each year. And pay way way beyond what people in equivalent jobs in the private sector make.

But hey maybe its true.. the first union ever to support as many people as possible entering their profession.

Oh c'mon, we can live beyond our means forever. The old people can easily take us down. We don't need to worry about beyond 2018 right?

Frankly, we have more than enough debt now. A good way to control spending would be to totally discontinue the socialist social security plan except for those that are simply unable to work.

Living beyond our means.. If people live to 90, they need to work until 80. Do something.

Or else, perhaps, a mandatory life maximum of 80. I'm serious. Logan's Run perhaps, but everyone will suffer if we don't extend working time or reduce lifespans.

I will have a big ass rocking chair, a wrap around porch and I will be bitching about teen-agers, not sitting in traffic jams on my way to the fluorescently lighted cubicle.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - Don't forget the shotgun in your lap, and the golden spittle and a bottle of Jack's!

Which, is my point. Right now it has a surplus, the sooner we make the transition, the sooner we head off that train wreck. Also, just because it hasn't hit the books yet, doesn't mean the deficit doesn't exist! Perhaps, just maybe mind you, if the Congress has to report the REAL deficit figures instead of covering them up with the short term SS surplus raids they will, gee whiz dare I hope, STOP SPENDING as much!

I am 65 and get SS.
I agree that allowing people some control of their money should have started a long time ago.
On the age thing, they already have a scale that goes up every year.
To get the maximum SS check, the age is now about 65 and 1/2.

I'm sorry but I think you fail to distinguish between rhetoric and reality.

By setting the retirement age at or slightly above the average life-expectancy the program's designers knew they were guaranteeing that very large numbers of payees would never see a dime of pension money.

You also say It's designed to be an insurance program and supplemental retirement program to cover all workers. But poor workers never had and never will have those other retirement plans so I stand by my characterization.

why don't we take that SS SURPLUS and use it to cover the transition costs to personal accounts rather than Congress stealing it to use for the general fund?

Because a personal accounts program is too much an investment scheme and too little an insurance plan.

If it's possible to construct a better insurance plan, one with a higher payout and a comparable level of safety, then I'm all for it. But I doubt that it is.

coal miners, construction workers, etc" are born investment geniuses. All they need is a little push from the government - like reducing their Social Security benefits - to achieve their potential....you really believe that?

There are ways to allow people to invest without having them become investment geniuses. The Federal TSP is one such example. The USG would offer four or five funds. The Stock and bond funds would be index funds. They could also offer Treasury bills for those who want no risk. The stock and bond funds could be life cycle funds, which would automatically become more conservative as the worker gets older.

If workers are limited to 4% of their SS contribution for personal accounts, they would still have a USG provided defined benefits portion of SS. Combined with personal accounts, workers would get more than they would receive under SS and actually own a portion of their retirement, which could be passed on to their heirs. It would also be a form of enforced savings and benefit the economy as a whole.

More than 50% of Americans are already invested in the stock market through pension funds, IRAs, etc.

we could stop that in a flash by ending these insane free trade agrements with China, forcing them to drop their currency peg, etc.

our businesses are doing just fine - they are the ones offshoring jobs and investing in china.

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.