In Haggling Over Social Security, Even the Middle Is Perilous -NYT

[Rose Siding]

snip>
"It's going to be extremely difficult because of the built-in distrust between Democrats and Republicans," said Eric Patashnik, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia who has studied Social Security. "That's going to be hard to overcome."

To Republicans and other supporters of Mr. Bush's approach, the obvious middle ground would be to create private investment accounts out of the existing payroll tax, as the White House wants, and then combine that with steps to ensure that low-income and perhaps middle-class workers and retirees come out ahead, giving the final package a progressive cast.

"That's the thing you dangle out there: that the Social Security system is actually going to be better for low-income people," said Representative Jim Kolbe, Republican of Arizona, who has been trying to build bipartisan support for a plan that includes private accounts.

Among Democrats and other opponents of the administration's proposal, the assumption is that any deal would combine steps to ensure Social Security's financial health with the creation of retirement accounts that would supplement Social Security rather than replace a part of it. In that way, the legislation would meet the liberal demand that nothing be done to dismantle the retirement program while allowing conservatives to establish the principle of personal investing.

http://nytimes.com/2005/03/07/politics/07social.html

[Frances]

1. We already have IRA accounts

Why isn't there talk of "reforming" them and leaving social security alone?

The reason is that Bush wants to steal social security money and give it to the wealthiest 1%. Bush is still pushing to make those tax cuts permanent. I don't hear him talking about those tax cuts needing to be rescinded to pay off his huge debts.

[Kolesar]

2. That's what I say

Actually, I have seen proposals by Democrats to support self-funded retirement accounts that sound like IRAs or 401Ks to me.

I see the bush plan as borrowing trillions from the taxpayer so that wealthy people can suck money out of the government when they die. A reverse estate tax.

[dbt]

3. What A Fitting Epitaph For America:

"Even the middle was perilous."

[teryang]

4. Want to ensure SS financial health

Stop giving SS revenues to fund the pentagon.

[The Zanti Regent]

5. AND Stop financing churches with my tax dollars!

I'm tired of preachers living on tax free welfare. TAX ALL CHURCHES NOW!

[LizW]

6. Bush's biggest problem: the last four years

After over four years of nothing but lies and trickery, no Democrat believes him. His record proves over and over that his goal is to enrich the richest, convert the middle class to a permanent enslaved underclass and kill off or imprison the poor, all under a breathtakingly hypocritical banner of "compassionate Christian conservatism".

In spite of continuous media-aided propaganda, the cold hard facts of Bush's record are there and they show that these people intend to hurt America, fatally, in every way they possibly can.

The "distrust" wasn't "built-in" always. It came about because some Democrats finally figured out that Bushco is screwing them, and America.

[Demeter]

7. There IS NO Middle

whenever Bush proposes anything, it is destruction--how can you only "moderately" destroy something? Whether it's civil rights, the economy, or our nation's security, there is no going backwards: you can either go forwards, or destroy it.

[jmcgowanjm]

8. And pay no attn to Congress taking away your bankruptcy protection

What happens when a person
has lost his SS retirement due to bad
investing-anybody's 401k above
water since 2000?-and then gets
a med bill which normally would
be grounds for bankruptcy

A Bankrupt Law: What The Bankruptcy Bill Does

The bankruptcy bill is a giveaway to big credit card companies
at the expense of honest Americans.

That's precisely what it is. For a long time, cooler
heads prevailed in the Congress, relegating the
upcoming bankruptcy bill to a non-starter. But the
emboldened Republican majority has decided now is the time
to prime the pump for their re-election campaigns. The
way they're going about that is by ramming through
the bankruptcy bill, that strips consumers of existing rights to
file for bankruptcy and gives the big credit card companies
more power.

"A family driven to bankruptcy by the increased costs of caring
for an elderly parent with Alzheimer's disease is treated
the same as someone who maxed out his credit cards at
a casino"

"A person who had a heart attack is treated the same
as someone who had a spending spree at the shopping mall.
A mother who works two jobs and who cannot manage
the prescription drugs needed for a child with diabetes is
treated the same as someone who charged a bunch of
credit cards with only a vague intent to
repay."

http://www.americacoalition.org/

Can you say "Revolution"?.

[creeksneakers2]

9. The Dems made a mistake saying SS has a problem

SS has no problem. Any projections of shortfalls as far away as 2042 aren't much more than guesses. There is enough money in the fund to pay until then.

The Dems are still afraid that somebody will call them partisan or obstructionist. So, they give up a little to the lies so the party will look "reasonable." What we wind up with are smaller lies. The public has accepted that there is a "problem." Smaller lies will hurt us too.

Now, Carville has warned the Dems that they can't afford to look like they are doing nothing about the "problem." So, they offer to negotiate if Bush will give up private accounts. Saying "I'll negotiate if" is the same as saying "I'm ready to negotiate." Negotiating gives the GOP more proof that there is a "problem." The Dems gave up half and Bush hasn't even said what his plan is yet.

When the GOP said SS has a problem, Dems should have said it doesn't because we paid in extra to cover the baby boom. That fact has barely been mentioned, and its a powerful argument against cutting SS. It also puts the GOP on the defensive to explain where the money went, and why it won't be there.

There is a problem. The problem is that the its going to be very expensive to pay off all the money the GOP borrowed from SS. We have a debt problem, and Dems should have defined the debate that way. Ask the GOP what happened to their promises that tax cuts would pay for themselves. Ask what happened to the peace dividend. Ask where all the savings they promised from smaller government are. Ask them how much taxes will have to be raised on the next generation to pay off all the money the GOP spent on tax cuts for the rich and the military.

The debt the GOP has accumulated is the real problem. If Dems would stand up to lies and speak the truth they'd do much better in the end. They need to stop worrying about what the GOP will say and start sticking up for America.