Senator to Try New Strategy on Accounts for Retirees

WASHINGTON, April 21 - The Senate Finance Committee chairman, Charles E. Grassley, said Thursday that he would try to produce a Social Security bill with the support of Republicans alone, in an effort to jump-start a legislative effort now stymied by solid Democratic opposition.

Mr. Grassley, whose committee will play the lead role on Social Security, acknowledged that it was a risky strategy and that he would need to attract some Democratic support once the bill reached the full Senate, if not sooner. But he said, with some frustration, that he had been unable to get the Democrats on his committee to enter into negotiations unless he renounced President Bush's proposal to create private investment accounts in Social Security.

Mr. Grassley said he would not do that. As a result, he said, "I'm going to put together a Republican-only bill as a first step to getting bipartisan support because I can't lose time waiting for the Democrats to come to the table."

Mr. Grassley said he hoped to produce a Republican bill by early June, and hoped that the passage of time and the political pressure of the president would eventually bring some Democrats on board. "It isn't going to do any good to get a bill out of committee if we don't have some bipartisanship, at least on the floor," he said.

Republicans have 55 votes in the Senate, short of the 60 it takes to break a filibuster.

Mr. Grassley's decision, first reported Thursday in USA Today, reflects the deep political resistance to Mr. Bush's Social Security plan. Even writing off the Democrats, it will be very difficult for Mr. Grassley to hold all 11 Republicans on his committee for a plan that includes private accounts paid out of payroll tax revenues, as Mr. Bush proposes.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine on the committee, has repeatedly said she opposes the creation of such accounts. There are nine Democrats on the committee, and none have broken ranks.

The White House has always said that any overhaul of Social Security will have to be bipartisan, and Mr. Bush has worked hard to win over Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and a few others.

Mr. Conrad, who is on the Finance Committee, met for an hour with the president on Wednesday. He said he left with the same view he entered with: that Mr. Bush's proposal was unacceptable because it involved potentially trillions of dollars in additional borrowing to cover the transition costs of setting up the accounts, at a time when the nation is already straining under a substantial deficit.

Moreover, Mr. Conrad said, he thinks the administration is also contemplating "steep benefit cuts" to improve solvency. Mr. Conrad declined to comment on the president's reaction or comments.

With no signs that the wall of Democratic opposition is cracking, administration officials have said their main legislative goal now is to keep the process moving, even if it means jamming a partisan bill through the traditionally bipartisan Finance Committee.

With polls showing diminishing support for investment accounts, Mr. Bush made a vigorous case for the idea on Thursday in a speech before a group of insurance agents in Washington. He said that by allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into stocks and bonds, the government would help people build wealth and give them more control over their finances - changes, he said, that would help Social Security meet its promise of providing financial security in retirement as the population ages.

"Offering young workers a 1930's-era retirement system is like trying to persuade them that vinyl LP's are better than iPods," Mr. Bush said. "Creating accounts will give children and grandchildren a chance to replace a burden of uncertainty with new opportunity."

Mr. Bush continued to be vague about what benefit cuts or tax increases he would support to put Social Security on sounder financial footing over the long run. He mentioned that there were a variety of ways to address the problem, including cutting benefits in a way that would hit upper-income people harder than lower-income people.

But he attributed the ideas to Democrats rather than embracing any of them himself. In doing so, he insulated himself and his party from attacks from opponents of any cutbacks, yet at the same time undermined the argument being made by many Republicans that Democrats are running away from a substantive negotiation over the issue.

Mr. Grassley said Republicans on the committee would begin their work by focusing on shoring up the program's solvency, and said everything was on the table.

"he had been unable to get the Democrats on his committee to enter into negotiations unless he renounced President Bush's proposal to create private investment accounts in Social Security.

Mr. Grassley said he hoped to produce a Republican bill by early June,"

FINALLY, a Republican with some courage. Send him encouragement.

I think it's great that you have a link to some of the hot topics of the day, such as right on top of the page:

Shhhh... Dems "quietly" try to kill Clinton probe
Latest News on Tom DeLay
Latest News on Bolton confirmation
Latest News on the filibuster
Latest News on the Pope

I think adding Social Security to it would be a great idea.

Thanks.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a moderate Republican

ROFLOL!

I guess to the NYT's she is a "moderate". To me she is a LIBERAL.

The AARP (American association for retarded people) has been airing commercials suggesting that changing socialist security is like tearing down a house because you have a broken sink.

Sure, $40,000,000,000,000 in debt owed to socialist security is only a small problem.

I saw the ads. They are trying to scare people -- that's all they know.

The Republicans should air an ad showing, that by NOT fixing a sink, when it starts to leak, it can flood your house a while later, so it makes a lot of sense to fix the sink now, rather than wait until it develops a full blown disaster.

I guess to the NYT's she is a "moderate". To me she is a LIBERAL.

The political spectrum according to the leftwing media:

left of center ... moderate ... extreme right

Any idea that takes our money out of the reach of the Progressive Democrats and other free spending politicians, regardless of the Party -- is a good Bill.

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.