From Bush Aide, Warning on Social Security(cut bene's to avoid tax on rich

[papau]

Link Benefits to inflation, rather than average wage increase, is a cut in the guaranteed benefits of retired people, making the benefit to what other folks are earning relationship lower as time goes on: so is this a good?

And Mankiw's "no free lunch" is not stopping at that - other cuts are needed if the rich are not to pay back the payroll tax they stole to finance the Bush tax cuts for the rich. But our media sure is keeping the real story quiet - wonder why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/politics/03social.html?oref=login&oref=login

From Bush Aide, Warning on Social Security
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

ASHINGTON, Dec. 2 - Calling the current system of Social Security benefits unsustainable, a top economic adviser to President Bush on Thursday strongly implied that any overhaul of the system would have to include major cuts in guaranteed benefits for future retirees.<snip>

"The benefits now scheduled for future generations under current law are not sustainable given the projected path of payroll tax revenue," he added. "They are empty promises."

Mr. Mankiw's remarks suggested that President Bush's plan to let people put some of their Social Security taxes into "personal savings accounts" would have to be accompanied by changes in the current system of benefits.

Throughout the presidential campaign and in remarks after he was re-elected, Mr. Bush focused almost exclusively on these accounts as a crucial way to shore up Social Security. Most experts have said that the accounts must be accompanied by other belt-tightening measures. When asked about cuts in future benefits, Mr. Bush, however, has said only that any overhaul should make no changes in the benefits for people in retirement or near retirement. The president has said that overhauling the Social Security system would involve "costs," but so far he has not indicated what those might be.

In his speech, Mr. Mankiw flatly rejected raising taxes as a means of saving the federal retirement system, which government actuaries say is on track to become insolvent by 2042 if no changes are made to the current law. Instead, he took particular aim at a specific feature of current law under which retirement benefits are linked to the rise in wages rather than the rise in consumer prices.<snip>

COMMENT:Why do we say insolvent when we mean it will need a retirement age change in 2042 from the Reagan 67 to 70?

[Florida_Geek]

1. Oh Mr. Mankiw

"In his speech, Mr. Mankiw flatly rejected raising taxes as a means of saving the federal retirement system, which government actuaries say is on track to become insolvent by 2042 if no changes are made to the current law"

What is the new date with Bush's changes he wants to make.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Flip it over, and he is saying that SS is solvent until at least

2042. And by that time the Boomers will be dying off in droves, relieving the pressure on the wage earners.

SS INSOLVENCY IS A LIE!!!

[Sugarbleus]

3. Good point.... I've said myself that safty net programs

aren't all that top heavy if you figure in the people who die off ...every day (in some cases, find a job or strike it rich).

I sure won't live to see 2042..that would make me nearly 100!

This same idea is true of any healthcare policy we wanted...EVERYONE wouldn't be using the system at the same time. Young people don't use healthcare nearly as often as older Americans; Even then, not all people of any age run to the doctor in a steady stream.

The stingy, fear mongering, bean counters and neocons and neo liberals have some silly notion about "Everyman for Himself in America". Hell, this isn't the wild open frontier anymore. We're in 2004 fercrissakes...one might have thought we'd have become much more sophisticated with our domestic policies by now.

Do ANY of our leaders/politicians think AHEAD???? I can't run my life without thinking ahead, why do these bozos in Washington get away with it??
Conscience and planning is all it takes.

[Vitruvius]

4. The US Gov't inflation figures are COOKED -- to hide the declining

US standard of living. It began when Ronald Reagan took the cost of buying a home out of the inflation index -- while house prices and mortgate interest rates exploded -- then declared 'victory' over inflation. And it has continued ever since.

Yes, wages have gone up faster than the government's figures for inflation. But we are not living as well as our parents. Which says that wages are not going up as fast as the real rate of inflation.

Linking Social Security benefits to a Rethug-rigged "inflation" index means dogfood for us in our old age.