NYT: In Bush's Plan, Social Security Changes Focus (Make Irrelevant to MC)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/politics/01social.html?ei=5094&en=fe8d620a0f24f813&hp=&ex=1114920000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=

In attempting to fix Social Security's long-term problems without raising taxes, President Bush has chosen to recast the 70-year-old retirement program as one that would keep the lowest-income workers out of poverty but become increasingly irrelevant to the middle class and the affluent.

Under Mr. Bush's approach of "progressive indexation," a typical low-income worker who earns about $16,000 a year today would be entitled to retirement benefits equal to about 49 percent of his or her wages, the same amount that is promised today.

But those earning an average income, about $36,500 in today's dollars, would see big changes. Instead of replacing 36 percent of that person's working pay, as promised under today's system, benefits would cover only 26 percent of pay by 2075. And people who earn $90,000 a year in today's dollars would continue to pay as much as ever in taxes but would receive benefits equal to only 12 percent of their pay.

From the beginning, Mr. Bush has adamantly opposed alternative plans that would restore Social Security's solvency by raising taxes. While Mr. Bush has not ruled out an increase in the ceiling on income that is subject to payroll taxes, now $90,000, the idea is anathema to him and most Republicans.

Pay attention Middle Class - He's going to irrelevant you back to poverty.

Here's a great visual of current system compared to *'s cuts from the WP to email and give to those you know - especially * voters. Maybe they can understand pictures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/04/30/GR2005043000201.html

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. So, in other words:

The people who pay the most in taxes, dollar for dollar, will take it up the poopshoot and not get kissed for their involvement. Nice.

When do we hit the streets with a few million people in Washington? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Bryn]

2. Wouldn't it cause the Middle Class America to Revolt if

Bush and his GOP cronies got their way? I make $35,000 and I am not pleased with his idea, it is going to make me POOR when I retire. I've paid into system for 36 years so far for other people to retire which I do not mind and I'd like to have it (my turn) when my time comes.

:kick:

[SharonAnn]

11. You've also paid for yourself. We're the first generation in US to do tha

That's why there's a Social Security surplus right now. We're paying for current retirees AND ourselves. The purpose of this was to build up enough surplus that the apyments wouldn't be too onerous on the next generation.

Of course what they wantis that there won't BE any payments by the next generation, especially the upper income ones.

[meti57b]

3. people will be paying full FICA contributions but will get very little ...

in benefits. As a result, after a while the people who pay all the FICA and get little in benefits will want to scrap the whole Social Security program. That is exactly what Bush wants.

[freedom_to_read]

9. Ding ding

correct answer.

[Jacobin]

13. Yep. Turn into 'welfare' and the middle class will turn on it

They are drowning SS in the bathtub in the name of 'reform'

[w4rma]

4. Republicans will do *anything* to move a little closer to destroying SS nt

[AuntiBush]

5. Now He's Trying to Turn Middle-Class Against the Disabled, Poor

Widows, and future retiress whom have had their pensions looted, or had none at all. Guess turning Grandkids against their parents and grandparents didn't work. Now he's trying another angle.

Funny, but you'd think the Religious Sectors would see though his BS. And maybe, grow-tired of being lied, over and over again.

[rodeodance]

6. an editoral is morning called Jr the new Robin Hood

[RamboLiberal]

7. That NYT editorial though was praising Bushie for his plan

basically saying he was protecting the poor better than Dems. Bush toadie Tierney wrote it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/opinion/30tierney.html?hp

[AuntiBush]

8. Pied Piper, is more like it.

[pinto]

10. Americans making more than $90,000 ought to pay Soc. Sec. payroll taxes.

The rest of us do.

The Republican's blind spot on an obvious, and fair, option is telling.

It's not about shielding those who make more than $90,000, though that's implied in their group think, it's about shielding the corporations that would match the Social Security tax, as they do now for other employees. (It's what, 11.5% for both employer/employee, I believe?)

If the Republicans want a "sliding scale" I'd give them this - hold all American workers, hourly and salaried, to the payroll tax to support Social Security , give the corporations a decreasing, sliding scale match for employees above $125,000, and tax corporate overseas profits as domestic profits are taxed.

No more shelters on off shore corporate profits, no more exclusions from supporting Social Security for higher income workers, and an agreement to soften the matching Social Security tax burden for corporations. I think that's a compromise that puts the cards on the table.

This is off the top of my head, but my starting point, the deferment on Social Security support for those making more than $90,000 ought to be addressed in this debate.

[wishlist]

12. At least this writer points out Bush plan does not increase SS for poor

Seems like a lot of media pundits got the mistaken impression Bush wants to enhance the benefits for the lower wage earners when Bush really only advocates leaving their benefits uncut:

"Under Mr. Bush's approach of "progressive indexation," a typical low-income worker who earns about $16,000 a year today would be entitled to retirement benefits equal to about 49 percent of his or her wages, the same amount that is promised today."

How generous of him!

[Roland99]

14. So, don't fund it, cut it?

Beautiful.

Although, we knew all along the radical right's plan was to work to scuttle SS so they could free up more money for tax cuts for their business buddies and beef up our military with boondoggle space missile shields.

[Roland99]

15. And who helped craft the "progressive indexation"? Pozen (a Dem.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/politics/30pozen.html?

The intellectual force behind President Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security, the man the president calls his favorite "Democrat economist," is not an economist. He is Robert C. Pozen, a lawyer and mutual fund executive who serves as chairman of MFS Investment Management in Boston.

A registered Democrat, Mr. Pozen donated money to the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry last year and voted for him on Nov. 2. He was a classmate of Hillary Rodham Clinton at Yale Law School.

But all that has not stopped President Bush from embracing Mr. Pozen's main idea to bring the nation's public pension regime into financial balance: a plan called "progressive indexing" because it would protect the lowest-wage workers from benefit reductions while progressively cutting benefits of higher-earning workers.

Mr. Pozen, who served on Mr. Bush's commission in 2001 that developed initial plans for carving private accounts out of Social Security, has been thrust into the spotlight by Mr. Bush's embrace of his proposal. But Mr. Pozen says his ideas on public pensions are free of politics.

[RamboLiberal]

16. Tell the Freepers a Dem crafted Bushie's plan

That should help turn them.

Anyone know how this is playing out in Freeper land? I'd expect they'll be protesting this too!

[ninkasi]

17. His goal

is to have two classes, and two classes only. The few ultra rich, and the rest of us, who will be poor. I do not for a second believe that anything this moran does will help any class but his own. As far as the rest of us, we are only good to provide more money to the already super wealthy, and give our children over to fight his increasing number of wars.

This country needs to return to sanity, and we aren't going to do it as long as neocons are in power.

[ray of light]

18. It's time to be LOUD

Talk, talk, talk. Be the media. this social security thing really ticks me off. I've sent a letter to every newpaper in my Congressman's district telling them that this administration wants to STEAL SOCIAL SECURITY and stick the middle class with NOTHING.

This really has to stop! It's so important to make calls to congress 202-224-3121 and ask for your rep. and insist that they not touch social security. Go to local meetings, post this article and inform people. That's how we getting these thugs to think twice.

[Moderator]

19. kick to combine

[NNN0LHI]

20. Bush Social Security plan would have big impact on most Americans

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11538146.htm

PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - On Thursday night, President Bush announced that he'd like to balance Social Security's books by having retirement benefits grow more slowly for the better-off than for people with lower incomes.

He was endorsing, at least in principle, an idea called "progressive indexing," the brainchild of a Boston-based investment executive named Robert C. Pozen.

And progressive indexing, if enacted, would have a dramatic impact on the vast majority of working Americans.

In the decades to come, only the poorest 30 percent of retirees would receive the Social Security benefits they're promised under current law.

Everyone else would get less, a lot less as time goes on, with higher-wage workers seeing the greatest impact in their checks.

more

[FloridaPat]

21. Wages are going down. I don't get the math on this part. And if

inflation goes back to 20% will benefits then go up 20% for everyone else? If wages are going down, will benefits drop? Washington is disgusting with all the number spins they come up with.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

22. Premise of plan is ridiculous - present earnings are no barometer

of future needs. Some people with high incomes may also have high medical expenses, or high education costs, or any number of other factors which make it difficult to impossible for them to save meaningful amounts for retirement. We are also seeing pensions decimated or underfunded (talk to United airline pilots - they had high incomes and good pensions which are being anihilated - think they won't be happy to get their Social Security? Think it won't make a big difference to them in retirement?)How much did the Enron employees make that saw their 401Ks wiped out. This plan is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. Raise the cap on earnings, be done with it and call it a day.