The coming Social Security "scam" as I see it....

[kentuck]

They will raise the ceiling on FICA taxes. After all, 2% of 100K is more than 2% of 30K. If they can raise the ceiling to 150-200K, they will get a lot more in taxes to take care of dangerous deficits that Bush has created. But, to soften the blow to those who will get the "tax increase", they will be offered the option of tax-free private accounts for their 2% investments in their privatization plan. So both sides win. Bush gets his tax increase. The new taxpayers get to invest their 2% in the market. Most of the "investors' will be the new people making $100,000 and above. That is the scheme that I see coming out of this scheming White House.

[MrUnderhill]

1. Your math is a little off.

It certainly wouldn't be "everyone wins" to let them invest 2% in exchange for the tax increase...


Because the tax increase would be 12.4% of the income between ~$80k and ~$200k. That's a much bigger number than 2% of 200K.

[kentuck]

2. You are correct but...

They will refer to it as 2% of the approximate 7% that is now paid by employees. They will probbly keep the same level for employers...

[papau]

3. True - plus the Lindsey(R) proposal was for a temp imcrease in the

cap - so that after 10 years it would fall back.

Interestingly, Bush spokes people, after saying no tax increase, and being adament that meant no increase in the payroll tax rate, are not willing to say no increase in the cap.

But the Linsey "possible up to" 200,000 cap is already shouted down to 150,000 - with mainstream media calling that a doubling (double 90,000? - the math only works for a GOPer).

The cut in guaranteed benefits is around the order of the Brits Thatcher's 1/3 in the 80's - so long term the rich do get a hell of a return on the temp additional tax that a temp increase in the wage cap would force them to pay.

But it is a long term screwing of the middle class in favor of the rich - temp additional taxes on the rich just to get the idea off the ground.

[kentuck]

4. Yep.

But Repubs don't do math well. :)

[craigfarmer]

5. Democrats must stop pandering to special interest groups

Democrats must stop pandering to special interest groups, and start being true Liberals.

That means using facts, logic, and being informed by all relevant sources of information. Then offering policy ideas that benefit all Americans.

Republicans once again are proposing ideas about fundamental institutions, and we as Democrats are left responding, often trying to scare specific groups about horrible consequences to come.

As a Newliberal, I believe we have to LEAD the NEW ideas movement. This includes offering ideas to get people dreaming of what the country would be like in Democratic hands. Our selling point for the past decade has been: WE AREN'T REPUBLICANS.

Also, we should support the President when he has a good idea, and make it better.

This President has offered numerous Liberal ideas that we have incorrectly tried to paint him as either cynical or EXTREME:

1. No Child Left Behind

2. Immigration reform

3. Affirmative Action with his appointments

4. Prescription drug benefit in Medicare


I personally disagree with many of these "liberal" ideas Pres. Bush has offered, BUT we should use him as an example to rebuild the "liberal" label, rather than trying to convince people that the President is out to get them.

On SOCIAL SECURITY:

As liberals, we should accept these principles that the President has advocated:

1. maintain and strengthen Social Security

2. provide personal accounts to build an ownership society

We need to view the debates we have from the perspective of an average citizen not finely attuned to politics.

They have personal accounts in retirement plans, and bank accounts.
Democrats need to craft a realistic proposal that maintains security, while utilizing 21st century market-values.


1. Divide Social Security into two parts similar to Medicare part A and part B.:

A. Defined benefit that provides a basic guaranteed benefit

B. personal account that can be passed on to heirs or
or donated.


2. Allow people to divert up to 40% of part A money into Part B.

3. Part B should be progressive so that poor people receive a 2-1
matching credit up to a certain amount, while the middle class is
held harmless; and the rich give up money in the diversion.

4. Individuals could invest Part B money in numerous financial
instruments that are approved based on their risk/age.

5. Accurate indexing of all defined benefits, so that inflation is not
over/understated.


Money needed for transition could be financed through a new financial agency run independent of the government; similar to the Federal Reserve. They could issue debt, and repay it from the system's own funds over the next generation.

Social Security could become totally separate from the general revenue, and not subject to political chicanery.

check for new ideas at http://www.newliberals.org

we're making the word "liberal" safe again!

[kentuck]

6. No Child Left Behind ?

He didn't fund it. And he had no excuse. His Party was in power. No liberal would have done such a thing. You are way off base. Affirmative Action? You must be kidding? What percentage of people do Rice, Powell, Gonzales, and others represent in their race or class? They represent what George Bush represents. It is not color that distinguishs affirmative action or diversity. Reform Social Security? He wants to destroy Social Security. No true liberal would believe that bullshit.

[kentuck]

7. Gene Lyons had an interesting comment on the subject...

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=Editorial&storyid=101960

<snip>
So what’s the problem? Remember in 2001 when Bush argued that Clintonera budget surpluses belonged "to the American taxpayers—not to the government—and it should be returned to the people in the form of a tax cut"? He was wrong on both counts, economist Allen W. Smith writes in his pungent book," The Looting of Social Security": "The money did not belong to the government or the general public. It belonged to the Social Security trust fund and to the hard-working Americans whose payroll tax contributions created the Social Security surplus." But now, see, GOP thinkers argue that the surplus is purely theoretical, an "accounting trick," some say; government IOUs that needn’t be paid. If so, then salaried workers have been the pigeons in a gigantic money-laundering scam since 1983, remitting payroll taxes that the Bush administration has diverted to fund rebates to his wealthiest supporters. Understand, too, that his proposed "reforms" begin with sheer make-believe.

[papau]

8. Gene is spot on! Thanks for posting this.

:-)

[thecrow]

9. Add this into the mix..

I posted this on another thread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x788209

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breakin...




MEXICO CITY - For the 14 years he worked as an undocumented migrant in the United States, Carmelo Rivera saw up to $30 deducted each week from the $300 to $500 he earned as a vineyard worker. The deductions were supposed to pay for his retirement.

But like millions of other Mexicans who worked under false Social Security numbers, he's unlikely ever to see a penny of it.

In fact, if a group of U.S. Congressmen has their way, undocumented migrants would be permanently barred from ever seeking to reclaim tens of billions they paid into Social Security. Instead, the money will go to fund American citizens' retirement.

Neither migrants nor their government appear to be fighting the issue, despite what's at stake: a little-known Social Security account called the "earnings suspense file," which grows at a rate of about $6 billion a year and now stands at about $376 billion.


Edited to add content from link