Posted on 06/22/2005 10:53:02 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Key House Republicans crafted Social Security legislation Wednesday that shuns the painful measures needed to assure long-term solvency and omits President Bush's call for personal accounts financed with payroll taxes.
Instead, the measure showcases a promise, designed to reassure seniors, that Social Security surplus funds will be used only to create individual accounts that differ sharply from Bush's approach.
Despite the differences from Bush's proposals, Democrats quickly attacked the legislation, which is emerging in different forms in the House and Senate.
Sen. Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record), D-Mont., called it "a smaller version of a bad idea. That bad idea is private accounts."
"They can twist themselves into any pretzel shape they want," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "As long as privatization is on the table, there will be no compromise on Social Security."
Whatever its prospects, officials said it was possible the leadership would embrace the measure in the House, elevating it in stature above other proposals.
Senior GOP leaders have been wary of Bush's proposals, worrying that rank and file lawmakers could be burned at the polls in 2006 if compelled to vote on them.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the emerging House measure as a vehicle for creating personal accounts until the Social Security trust funds' surplus is exhausted sometime in the next decade.
Under current law, any Social Security payroll tax money not used to finance monthly benefits is in effect lent by Social Security to the Treasury, which uses it to finance other government programs.
Government actuaries say the surplus is expected to vanish in 2017 when benefit payments exceed payroll taxes collected.
In addition, the GOP bill "doesn't deal with solvency," according to another official, indicating it would avoid the difficult choices of curbs on benefits, higher taxes or changes in the retirement age needed to implement the president's call for long-term financial stability.
The officials who discussed the measure Tuesday did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were barred from disclosing details until a formal release Wednesday.
Four members of the House Ways and Means Committee arranged for an early afternoon news conference to discuss the measure. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., chairman of the panel, was not scheduled to join the others, Reps. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, Sam Johnson of Texas, Clay Shaw or Florida and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
But Thomas was intimately involved in crafting the bill, and he and McCrery met privately on Tuesday with Speaker Dennis Hastert and other members of the leadership.
It was not clear in advance whether Thomas, Hastert or other leaders intended to formally endorse the bill, but one official said it was possible an outline would be presented before the news conference to the GOP rank and file.
Either way, the emerging legislation marked the latest blow to Bush, who has said repeatedly he intended to spend the political capital gained in last fall's re-election to win fundamental changes in Social Security. The president has traveled to more than two dozen states since last winter trying to build support. Polls have shown his recommendations generate insufficient popularity to galvanize Republican lawmakers to action.
Instead, with Democrats unified in opposition and threatening to use the issue in the 2006 elections, GOP leaders have been reluctant to act.
As recently as last week, Hastert told reporters there was no timetable for action on Social Security legislation. Other senior Republicans have said they hoped the Senate could act first.
But Senate Republicans are stymied as well. Efforts to forge a consensus among GOP members in the Senate Finance Committee have proven unsuccessful. Sen. Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, who holds a pivotal vote, said Tuesday the issue was too important to be put on a partisan "fast track."
Bush got a firsthand glimpse of the difficulties confronting him during the day, when Sen. Robert Bennett (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, informed him that he intended to introduce legislation omitting private investment accounts funded through Social Security payroll taxes.
Bennett favors the accounts, but has long been considering dropping them from legislation in hopes of prompting Democrats to join in bipartisan talks on steps to shore up solvency.
"He indicated that I should go forward and do that," Bennett said of Bush. "And I'm grateful to have him do that even though his own preference would be to have personal accounts included."
Bennett's bill also includes steps to place Social Security on a stronger financial footing. It would curtail promised benefits for middle- and upper-income wage earners of the future, while protecting benefits for those who made less money during their working lives.
Bush's spokesman, Trent Duffy, told reporters that despite Bennett's plan, the president is not retreating on his insistence for personal accounts.
Later, in remarks on CNN, Bennett said that while Bush had spoken favorably of steps to achieve greater solvency, he "didn't specifically say, 'And it's a good thing you're dropping private accounts.' Frankly, that didn't come up," said the senator, who supports individual accounts.
Apart from Bennett, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is crafting legislation along the lines of the bill being prepared in the House.
In an interview, DeMint said the measure was designed to mark the first step on a longer road toward transforming Social Security, a recognition that Congress isn't ready to enact everything the president wants.
He, too, indicated the bill was designed to outflank Democrats.
"The party of 'no' will have a hard time saying 'no' to saving Social Security," he said.
Bush favors allowing younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal accounts, enabling them to reap the reward of investment returns higher than Social Security provides. His approach also calls for a reduction in benefits promised to future retirees.
Forgot the ?
President Bush and economic liberty lost big time on this.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
And just where will the cutoff be? This is exactly the kind of crap I would expect from the "Soak the Rich" RAT-bastards. Nice of the Repubos to do the dirty work.
WE'RE IN CHARGE??? Why don't they get that? Where have their testicles gone?
"Key House Republicans crafted Social Security legislation Wednesday that shuns the painful measures needed to assure long-term solvency"
Well that's objective. Normally a line like that belongs in an editorial.
I'm against this bill but that bias is too much to overlook.
"The Stupid Party wants to forgo changing Social Security in the hopes of winning over the Democrats. Boy, are they deluded."
Exactly. Why are the Republicans putting themselves on the line to protect the program as the Democrats want it?! There is no point in changing social security one iota if there's no move towards private accounts. To do so merely prolongs the ponzi scheme.
I remember reading that when SS came around, the average life span was so low that only a few odd balls would ever collect. In other words....it was just a cash cow and we have used it as such since the beginning.
This reminds me of the story Winston Churchill told to the House of Commons about an opposition member who wanted to appease Hitler. Churchill said that, as a boy, a carnival had come to his town and he very badly wanted to see a freak show exhibition called the "Spineless Wonder." But his parents forbade him to go, judging the exhibition to hideous for his young eyes.
Churchill went on to say "then imagine my astonishment, gentleman, to see standing before me today on the other side of the aisle, the Spineless Wonder himself, in all his glory."
That's how I feel about this "proposal" dealing with Social Security. What a mediocre age we live in when this is the best the Republicans in the House can come up with.
I just can't comprehend why the Republicans would expend political capital in order to do exactly what the Democrats want (prolong this disasterous program).
Bush put this SS issue on the table. The Dems still say there is no problem with SS. He wants THEM to put their foot in their mouth.
Social Security is a government program with a constituency made up of the old, the near old and those who hope or fear to grow old. After 215 years of trying, we have finally discovered a special interest that includes 100 percent of the population. Now we can vote ourselves rich.
P. J. O'Rourke
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.