Posted on 06/22/2005 10:02:24 AM PDT by yoe
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a move designed to draw support from Democrats, a Republican senator said he will propose a Social Security plan that does not include the creation of private investment accounts for younger workers but calls for benefit cuts for most workers.
Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, chief deputy majority whip, said Tuesday that his bill, absent personal accounts, is designed to "break the logjam and move forward on Social Security."
Bennett said his plan will call for a change in the way promised benefits are calculated for higher- and middle-income workers, who would get smaller retirement checks.
Voluntary private accounts have been a sticking point in Social Security debate. The Bush administration has centered its recent two-month, nationwide campaign on the proposal. Most Democrats have said accounts are too risky and would increase the deficit because of the trillions of dollars in government borrowing needed to start the accounts. Some Republicans have also voiced opposition to accounts.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Remember this:
Another Lindsey Graham.
Hey senator, take that plan and shove it up your cowardly, dumocrat cowering butt.
"a Republican senator said he will propose a Social Security plan that does not include the creation of private investment accounts for younger workers but calls for benefit cuts for most workers."
Ahh... the well known POLITICAL SUICIDE proposal. What a moron this guy is. Why should the Republicans bear the political brunt of cuts in a program that is fundamentally wrong? No personal accounts, no deal.
I don't want to hear about "Save Social Security". What's the point of saving it if he's just going to let it go on as a generational pyramid scheme?
Although I personally wouldn't cry at the collapse of this Government mandated Ponzi scheme, I wonder if the President's implied support of this plan (although the WH today said the President remains committed to personal accounts) is a strategy to call the Democrats' bluff. They have said they couldn't even discuss reforming Social Security if the proposal included personal accounts. Well, this plan eliminates them, so they should flock to support it, correct? If not, then they obviously just want it as a political issue, not that there's a chance in he** that the press would point out their hypocrisy.
First of all, why do we want to save a program that is fundamentally wrong?
Secondly, why for-pete's-sake would we take the political heat in order to save such a program?
"a strategy to call the Democrats' bluff."
How is proposing benefit cuts with absolutely no up-side for anyone going to be politically successful?
Why not just cut to the chase: higher taxes, lower benefits, and a raising of the retirement age. Absent privatization, that's the only way to keep the Ponzi scheme going for a while longer.
YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO HANDLE YOUR RETIREMENT OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER!
The elitists in Washington, smart people like Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, the intellectuals of our time (/s) want your money! That is the crux of the matter. Pullleese get behind this President and his Social Security Plan as outlined in his SOTU address. Thanks.
Don't hold back cowboy! I also understand this guy wants to put no cap on SS & FICA. This would greatly affect employers who have to match these funds. Yeah, yeah, big companies would have enough funds (they would still be greatly affected), but what about employers like me? I haven't one word on this.
I hope that every state that has one of these senators will work diligently to defeat them in the next election with a true conservative candidate.
I'm not commenting on the overall plan. The Dems claim to this point is "we won't discuss any plan that includes personal accounts". Well, this plan doesn't have them. If they still refuse to budge, it paints them, yet again, as the party that says no just to have something, anything to say. It then allows the President to, hopefully, point out the hyporcrisy and say we obviously can't count on them to any plan, so it's apparently irrelevant whether or not they include personal accounts, so we might as well include them. Of course, I could also be falling into the common trap of spinning Republican spinelessness into a grand strategy!
If that's the case it's just not going to work. Nobody that would be swayed by it will even hear about this. It also gives the Dems an excuse to say we just want to cut social security. By the way, last I checked, the Republicans were in the majority... why do we need the Democrats for this?
Well, of course, it will result in a further lowering of the wage you can afford to pay someone. Just as there should be no payroll deduction of income taxes (nothing stokes taxpayer indignation more than actually having to write a tax check every week or month), businesses should also be permitted to show the true cost of employing someone with all the deductions and employee contributions detailed on the pay stub. But of course, since we never actually see the employer cost of Social Security, Medicare and health benefits, most people don't realize (and God forbid it should ever be taught in a government school....might cut back on indoctrination time) that this amount is already "deducted" from the salary in the form of a lower pay rate.
I agree. It was only a thought as to why Bennett could be claiming the President's support for a plan that doesn't include something that was central to his plan in the first place. As for why we need the Democrats, we can't pretend there isn't a full time liberal spin machine (aka the main stream press) going that will trumpet poll after poll that says people don't support the President's plan. So, he's got to change that perception. To just force through a plan without public support puts us in the situation of the House Republicans in 1994 who were wrongly perceived as ramming through an agenda without popular support. Although people don't like to acknowledge it, politics is a game and sometimes even the good guys have to play it.
Anyone over 55 will still receive SS benefits and will not have to contribute to the new system.
Anyone under 55 can start contributing to the new system with a portion going to their SS benefits and a portion to private accounts.
From there you phase out SS until the 21 year olds contribute nothing to SS and everything to their private accounts.
Or you can just calculate that everyone under retirement age can have their SS contributions over the lifetime of their employment rolled over into the same account that government employees get.
Then ask Congress for the money and see what they say as far as what they did with it.
Thank you and well put. I'd like to see more discussion on this subject.
Guess what, guys-- THIS IS WHY I WILL NEVER JOIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (at least, until I start seeing some substantial difference between the two parties on issues other than national defense).
Y'all can kiss my Libertarian grits!
Why would the RATs object to this plan? It is essentially what they want - cut benefits and raise taxes.
The RATS will object because first of all, the only thing they want to see with Social Security is an expansion of the program, regardless of the cost. Secondly, they will object to it because it is "sacred" and part of Roosevelt's legacy and so not to be touched (the irony being that while the Constitution is living and means whatever anyone says it means at any particular time while Democrat legislation must be written in immutable stone). Thirdly, they cannot afford for credit to be give to the President for seeming to be successful on this or any issue.
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.