posted on January 28, 2005 11:23:49 AM new
Democrats Bash Bush Social Security Plan
Updated 12:51 PM ET January 28, 2005
By LAURA MECKLER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democrats lashed out Friday against President Bush's plan to add personal accounts to Social Security and accused his administration of improperly using the Social Security Administration to promote the plan.
A pair of Social Security employees told the Democratic Policy Committee that they objected to internal agency documents that directs employees to talk about the system's problems and the need for reform.
"That is a political message and it's not my job as an agency employee to project a political message," said Debbie Fredericksen, who works in the Minneapolis field office and is a union representative.
Bush hopes to let younger workers divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts that are expected, based on historic returns, to be more profitable than traditional government bonds because they could be invested in the stock market.
Later Friday, Bush was addressing congressional Republicans at a retreat outside of Washington on Social Security and other issues.
Senate Democrats held their session to highlight their opposition to the Bush plan and what they say is the administration's improper use of a government agency.
Specifically:
_The agency's communications plan directs workers to spread this message: "In order for Social Security to be there for future generations, necessary reforms must take place."
_Talking points distributed internally reflect Bush's political messages about Social Security and the need for personal accounts. It includes Bush's principles for reform, including that "modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts to augment Social Security."
_Mailings to Americans detailing the benefits they can expect to receive also warn that "the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure that the system is sound."
_The agency's Web site and customer service telephone lines push the need to "modernize and reform" the system, saying the future shortfall is "massive and growing."
"We feel that this is a gross misuse and waste of government funds and government personnel," said Steve Kofahl, a claims representative from Seattle and also a union representative.
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan responded that the agency's actions were appropriate. "The Social Security Administration plays an important role in educating the public and ensuring the American people understand the issues facing Social Security, and we would certainly expect they would continue to play that role," she said.
At Friday's session, several Democrats said they would not support the Bush plan because it undercut the nature of Social Security as an insurance program that guards against poverty in old age.
"Social Security is a lifeline to a decent life," said Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
Also objecting was James Roosevelt Jr., grandson of President Roosevelt, who signed the Social Security Act into law.
Separately, Bush's advisers have settled on a proposal for structuring the personal accounts to resemble the Thrift Savings Plan, a tax-deferred retirement investment plan for federal workers similar to a 401(k) plan.
The idea is to minimize risk for people at the outset by offering as few as three to five diversified investment funds.
In the Thrift Savings Plan, federal employees have five investment options, including government and corporate bond funds, a stock fund that tracks the S&P 500, an international fund and other stock funds.
Under Social Security, workers would be enrolled by default in a "life cycle" account, in which investments become more conservative as investors age, if they do not choose one of the other options, according to two officials speaking on condition of anonymity. It would begin with investments that have greater potential for both risk and reward and shift to safer bonds as a worker ages.
The government would be responsible for keeping track of how much money is in each worker's account and give the lump sums to a financial services company to invest, a mechanism aimed at keeping administrative fees low, officials said.
That would mean only a limited profit potential for Wall Street. More money might be available for industry if a second tier of investments were permitted.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
posted on January 28, 2005 02:37:02 PM new
Poll shows Bush support on Social Security
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A majority of Americans, including nearly one-third of Democrats, support President Bush's proposal to let workers voluntarily invest part of their Social Security payroll taxes in stocks and bonds, a nationwide poll shows.
Despite a blistering national newspaper ad campaign against Mr. Bush's plan by the AARP and a growing chorus of daily attacks by Democrats, a survey of 1,004 likely voters slated to be released today finds strong public support for the idea, particularly among workers younger than 50.
The survey, conducted by independent pollster John Zogby for the Cato Institute, shows 51 percent like the idea of owning individual Social Security investment accounts, while 39 percent oppose them. Support increases to 58 percent among workers younger than 50 — the target group for Mr. Bush's plan — and rises to 61 percent among workers younger than 30.
As with Mr. Zogby's past surveys on the Social Security reform proposal, support drops among people 65 or older, with 55 percent saying they oppose the idea, although opposition declines to 45 percent when seniors are assured that their benefits will not be touched.
Americans are largely split along party lines, with Republicans overwhelmingly backing the proposed change by 74 percent to 14 percent. Democrats, however, are more divided over the issue: 61 percent oppose individual accounts, while 30 percent favor them — opening up a major constituency when Mr. Bush begins lobbying for his proposal after next week's State of the Union address.
Independent voters are more evenly split, 45 percent backing the accounts to 40 percent opposing them, with the rest undecided.
Voters do not appear to agree with Democratic leaders who are arguing that the venerable New Deal-era program does not face any serious problems that need to be fixed in the immediate future or even the distant future.
Although 14 percent agreed with Mr. Bush that the retirement program is in a "crisis," 61 percent said it faces "serious problems" and needs "major changes," the poll showed.
This view seems to undermine Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's contention at a press conference this week that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Social Security. "For more than 50 years we're going to be just fine," said Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat. But a scant 5 percent of voters agreed that the program's finances are fine and just 19 percent agreed that it needs only "minor, incremental changes."
As for the short-term risks inherent in the stock market, voters are evenly split between which is riskier, putting their money into Social Security's pay-as-you-go financing system or investing in broadly diversified stock funds approved by the government.
Although 41 percent see private investment as riskier because "benefits could go down depending on how investments perform," 44 percent say the existing Social Security system is more of a gamble "because it cannot pay all the benefits promised."
"Americans clearly understand the need for fundamental Social Security reform," said Michael Tanner, director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice. "They are open to the message that individual accounts give workers greater ownership and control over their retirement."
The poll was conducted in mid-January and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
posted on January 28, 2005 03:01:48 PM new
I don't really have a problem with having an option to mess around with a portion of one's SS money in the marketplace, but you can bet when people start doing stupid stuff with their money, they'll want the government to bail them out...What gets me is the scare tactics being used by the administration to make people think there's some sort of imminent crisis.
Full benefits payable until at least 2042, or even 2052, if you listen to the CBO.
After that time, they estimate they'll still be able to pay 75 to 80% of benefit amounts, even if nothing changes.
What's all the fuss about? This looks to me like another bendover to corporate interests by the Bushistas, and nothing more.
posted on January 28, 2005 03:02:17 PM new
I'm sure that many people will once again buy the lies of the bush administration.....this still does not make it right or good.
Remember how this administration fooled people into believing that Iraqis had something to do with 911? Some dopes will believe anything.
Everything bush has said about Social Security has proven to be false. All it takes is some investigating of independent sources.
It is public knowledge that civil employees have been pressured into promoting bush's whacked SS agenda....highly unethical.....how ethical do you think his plan will be?
This idiot wants to spend 1 trillion dollars to fix something that ain't broke. IF it's THAT broke why not put that trillion into the SS trust....that would keep it solvent (although it's a fact that it will be fine for at least 40-50 more years)
posted on January 28, 2005 03:21:49 PM new
Crow, you said "This idiot wants to spend 1 trillion dollars to fix something that ain't broke." and you are right.
WATCH OUT AND PAY ATTENTION MIDDLE CLASS YOUNG AND OLD. ITS JUST THE BEGINNING OF 4 MORE MORON YEARS.
posted on January 28, 2005 04:10:09 PM new
You have to find the topic article laughable.
Just read how the democrats/liberals were talking about the 'crisis' in SS during the clinton administration. Another 'flip-flop' by the democratic party. NOW it's no longer a crisis...it's another Bush fallacy. Oh how the 'tune' changes when they don't have control.
Glad to see the President is going to 'take this issue' to the people, and over their heads. Then watch the poll numbers increase for those who support privatization....ownership accounts.
The liberals don't believe people are capable of taking care of our own money, making their own decisions on where their retirement money goes. They believe government can do a much better job.
The Republicans want people to have ownership of their own lives, money, decisions.
Part of why I do/will support these accounts - from what I've read - if the legislation passes:
we'll be able to pass our benefits to our own children, rather than losing them to the government when you've paid for them all your life.
Stop paying into a system that history proves didn't earn as much as you get from the way it's handled now.
The way it is, you may never be able to collect from SS...you may die too early or they may keep changing how old you need to be to collect....or limit the benefits paid.
Freedom to decide where my own money goes. And for those who worry the process may be difficult...they can choose to opt-out.
Again...choice. And the dems don't want to give that choice to the people....so now it's the new line 'no crisis'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 04:42:17 PM new
Of course linduh would blindly believe and support bush..big surprise and from her
reasoning" shows that she has no understanding of the issue whatsoever....which never stops her from flapping those gums....
"""Stop paying into a system that history proves didn't earn as much as you get from the way it's handled now."""
posted on January 28, 2005 06:31:24 PM new
Politicians have been using the threat of the end of Social Security for half a century or more. Have you seen Tomwii's sig line with Reagan's quote? Both sides have used thes threats to their advantage.
Maybe the rise and decline of the "Baby Boomer" generation really WILL cause a major crisis. It sounds like a logical possibility to me. Or maybe it is just a bunch of bull. Whatever.
Why NOT remove this anvil from over our heads? Let's remove government monopoly over this insane *tax*.
And profe, some of us will be affected pretty strongly by that 2042 date. YOU may be planning on being dead by then, but I am definitely not.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on January 28, 2005 07:30:34 PM new
What amazes me is if a person at age 20 would put away $1,000.00 a year until retirement, in their retirement account they would have over 1 million dollars.
I think they only want to have the person invest 2 or 3% of the SS. The Social Security would still be there and then the retiree would have the added benefit of the 2 or 3% they invested, that is if they invest it. That is what is scary. Give people extra money and of course instead of investing they would spend it.
posted on January 28, 2005 07:37:50 PM newWhy NOT remove this anvil from over our heads. Let's remove government monoploy over this insane *tax*.
I'd be the first one to agree to doing just that IF someone would explain a method of how we would then support those we currently paying and also those who collect not only SS checks...but SS disability and widows/widowers with children. Have a solution to how we would handle that, replay?
I don't personally feel we could just stop paying them the funds they are now receiving....and they'd have to be paid somehow.
I'd love to hear your sugestions.
twelve - No...I'm not collecting SS yet. Widows have to be aged 60 before they can collect from either their own or their husbands accounts....or have dependents they're caring for in their home. But thanks anyway.
I was trying to say when the number crunchers do their thing....they've proven if the same funds were privately invested, as 401Ks are now, the SS money would be paying seniors [etc] a LOT more money than they are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 07:41:14 PM new
Libra - I don't believe that would be allowed, from what I've read. They'd be given a choice of say 5 different funds to put the money into....a choice from a approved list so to say.
But nothings written in cement right now...they're still in the 'narrowing it down' stage I believe.
I meant to post this SS website before....anyone interested can read what the SS Trustee's Report says about when money would run out....
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 07:48:54 PM new
Maggie, SS is NOT failing...don't believe the hysterical lies coming out of bush's mouth. It's doing fine and has been for 40-50 years. And anyone can find the lies.
Bush has made federal employees push his agenda...very dirty and underhanded...like PAYING (with taxpayer's money) payola to radio stations to air his plans and push his agenda. We are dealing with crooks here, don't believe the lies.
posted on January 28, 2005 07:57:35 PM new
Linda you saidNo...I'm not collecting SS yet.[i] Widows have to be aged 60 before they can collect from either their own or their husbands accounts....or have dependents they're caring for in their home. But thanks anyway.[i/]
I am curious about that statement.. Social Security has informed me that in the event that my husband passes I would not be able to collect his SS until I became eligible at the age of .. 68... based on my birth date.
Are you saying that anyone can collect SS as a widow at the age of 60??
posted on January 28, 2005 07:58:46 PM new
Maggie, read especially the last paragraph.
A Question of Numbers
By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
Published: January 16, 2005
HE CONSERVATIVE NEW DEAL
In 1938, the Social Security Act was only three years old, but its future was already very much in doubt. Conservatives claimed it would bankrupt the nation, and independent critics argued that the way it was financed amounted to ''financial hocus-pocus,'' as one editorial in The New York Times put it. President Franklin D. Roosevelt defended the program, said by a cabinet member to be his favorite, with some of his trademark oratory. ''Because it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own security,'' the president told a national radio audience, ''government must now step in and help them lay the foundation stones.''
Social Security did become the cornerstone -- not only the biggest government entitlement plan but also the most universal, the most popular and the most enduring. But the debate over Social Security never ended. Barry Goldwater wanted to repeal it; Milton Friedman wrote in 1962 that it was an unjustifiable incursion on personal liberty; and David Stockman, the budget director who personified Ronald Reagan's efforts to shrink the federal government, tried to take a hatchet to Social Security, which he called a ''monster.''
But in this 70-year struggle, no other conservative has ever come as close to transforming the program as George W. Bush. He is making Social Security reform, including a partial privatization, a centerpiece of his second term. If the most ardent ideologues have their way, such a reform would be a first step toward a wholly new approach to retirement security -- one that would set aside the notion of collective insurance and guaranteed minimums for that of personal investing and responsibility.
This could do more to reverse the New Deal, and even the Great Society, than Goldwater, Stockman and Reagan ever dreamed of. ''We call it a conservative New Deal,'' says Stephen Moore, author of ''Bullish on Bush: How George W. Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger.'' In Moore's words, it will be a fundamental shift ''from an entitlement society to an ownership society.'' The key to this transformation, according to a generation of conservative thinkers and crusaders, is reducing the size and changing the nature of Social Security, which now pays benefits of half a trillion a year, and which will only grow bigger as America grows older.
The campaign to privatize has not only been about ideology; it has also focused on Social Security's supposed insolvency. Moore's book calls Social Security a ''Titanic . . . headed toward the iceberg'' and a program ''on the verge of collapse.'' A stream of other conservatives have bombarded the public, over years and decades, with prophecies of trillion-dollar liabilities and with metaphors intended to frighten -- ''train wreck,'' ''bankruptcy,'' ''cancer'' and so forth. Recently, a White House political deputy wrote a strategy note in which he said that Social Security is ''on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness.''
The campaign is potentially self-fulfilling: persuade enough people that Social Security is going bankrupt, and it will lose public support. Then Congress will be forced to act. And thanks to such unceasing alarums, many, and perhaps most, people today think the program is in serious financial trouble.
But is it? After Bush's re-election, I carefully read the 225-page annual report of the Social Security trustees. I also talked to actuaries and economists, inside and outside the agency, who are expert in the peculiar science of long-term Social Security forecasting. The actuarial view is that the system is probably in need of a small adjustment of the sort that Congress has approved in the past. But there is a strong argument, which the agency acknowledges as a possibility, that the system is solvent as is.
Although prudence argues for making a fix sooner rather than later, the program is not in crisis, nor is its potential shortfall irresolvable. Ideology aside, the scale of the fixes would not require Social Security to abandon the role that was conceived for it in 1935, and that it still performs today -- as an insurance fail-safe for the aged and others and as a complement to people's private market savings.
PREDICTIONS AND BEST GUESSES
About 47 million people -- retirees and their dependents, under-age survivors of deceased workers and the disabled -- receive a check from Social Security every month. The money for this colossal endeavor comes from a payroll tax on current workers and on their employers. The program is a model of efficiency; expenses are low, as pension plans go, and participation is near universal. Benefits rise with the level of earnings, but they are tilted toward progressivity, so that those at the bottom get more in proportion to their earnings and those at the top get less.
Social Security also delivers a considerable nonmonetary benefit: people who have contributed throughout their working lives know that, regardless of the ebb and flow of their careers and, indeed, of the stock market, a guaranteed pension awaits them.
posted on January 28, 2005 08:05:36 PM new
By Norma Cohen
Web Exclusive: 01.11.05
A conservative government sweeps to power for a second term. It views its victory as a mandate to slash the role of the state. In its first term, this policy objective was met by cutting taxes for the wealthy. Its top priority for its second term is tackling what it views as an enduring vestige of socialism: its system of social insurance for the elderly. Declaring the current program unaffordable in 50 years’ time, the administration proposes the privatization of a portion of old-age benefits. In exchange for giving up some future benefits, workers would get a tax rebate to put into an investment account to save for their own retirement.
George W. Bush’s America in 2005? Think again. The year was 1984, the nation was Britain, the government was that of Margaret Thatcher -- and the results have been a disaster that America is about to emulate.
For all the fanfare that surrounds the Bush administration’s efforts to present a bold new idea on pension reform, the truth is that it is not new at all. In fact, the proposal looks suspiciously like the plan set in train during Thatcher’s first term in 1979 and which has since led Britain to the brink of a crisis. Since then, the nation’s basic pension, which is paid for out of tax receipts, has shrunk dramatically. The United Kingdom has the stingiest state pension program of any G8 nation, and there is growing consensus -- even among British conservatives -- that reform is needed. And ironically enough, considering that America is on the verge of copying Britain’s mistake, most experts seek reform in the direction of a more generous, and simpler, basic state pension -- one similar in design, in other words, to America’s Social Security program.
David Willetts, the Conservative MP who is the opposition spokesman on pensions (and whose intellectual agility has earned him the sobriquet “Two Brains”), is one admirer of the U.S. system. “I like the way they distinguish between Social Security and means-tested welfare,” he says. “They have higher Social Security benefits to keep elderly people off welfare.” And last year, in a startling reversal of its decades-old policy, the Confederation of British Industry, the United Kingdom’s premier business group and the functional equivalent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called for a more generous state retirement benefit, saying -- remember, this is the nation’s leading business lobby talking -- that it would even support raising taxes to help pay for it. (It also called for raising the retirement age.)
Britain’s experiment with substituting private savings accounts for a portion of state benefits has been a failure. A shorthand explanation for what has gone wrong is that the costs and risks of running private investment accounts outweigh the value of the returns they are likely to earn. On average, fees and charges can reduce pension lump sums by up to 30 percent on retirement. The nation’s savings industry, which sells those private accounts, has already acknowledged this. Which brings us to irony No. 2: Just as the United States prepares to funnel untold billions to its private sector for the management of private accounts, back in 2002, many U.K. insurance companies, mindful of tough new rules against giving bad advice, began to write to their customers urging them to consider abandoning their private savings and returning to the state pension system -- something hundreds of thousands of Britons have done already.
And this is the system that the United States is seeking to emulate?
posted on January 28, 2005 08:06:48 PM new
Yes, maggie, that's what I'm saying.
At any age, should your husband pass away, AND you either still have underaged children at home or an adult family member you care for, you can immediately collect what they refer to as a 'widow's pension'.
But if you don't have dependent children or etc at home...you can start collecting when you turn age 60. And even better is you can collect either your or his FULL [age 68] pension....no reduction in the amount paid because you're not at the 'correct' age limit. Mine would have been 67 and at at reduced rate at aged 62...or as it turned out, when I'm 60.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 08:16:00 PM new
I am shocked to learn that, Linda.
My accountant took the time to sit down with me to discuss this and specifically told me that in the event of my husbands death, (he is 12 years my senior), that I would not be able to collect his ss until I reached the age of 68...no dependent children or elderly living with us.. I will have to approach her on this again. Thank you for the information.
posted on January 28, 2005 08:32:16 PM new
From the New York Times:
EDITORIAL
The Best Coverage Money Can Buy
Published: January 27, 2005
President Bush says he has ordered his cabinet not to rent any more journalists to promote his policies, which was certainly the right thing to do. But he still seemed as much bemused as discomfited yesterday that administration officials have been caught making payoffs for positive "news coverage" from ostensibly independent journalists. At his news conference, Mr. Bush said that the White House had no knowledge of the arrangements with sellout members of the Fourth Estate and that he has reminded his cabinet secretaries that "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."
Still, we were puzzled as to why Mr. Bush had not said that earlier; his administration was caught hiring a public relations specialist last year to pose as a news reporter and peddle propaganda spots. The president also did not say whether his new policy of an "independent relationship" between the White House and the press corps extended to staff members who deny airplane seats and other access to reporters as punishment for their coverage.
Mr. Bush was plainly irritated by having to field questions about administration officials who tapped taxpayers to finance spin-for-money deals. The most prominent sellout was Armstrong Williams, the conservative television commentator who took $240,000 to do administration bidding on behalf of the No Child Left Behind Act while making a show of tough-minded candor.
The latest is the syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who did not disclose a $21,500 government writing contract for her promotion of Bush policy on strengthening marriage. Last year, there was the propaganda video on behalf of the Medicare drug program offered to budget-pressed TV stations. Full disclosure at signoff might have said, "Reporting live and in the tank!"
Loss of credibility works both ways. The exposed spinners deservedly suffer shame. But the administration's believability comes into question when officials like Rod Paige, the outgoing education secretary, defend buying faked coverage.
posted on January 28, 2005 08:33:12 PM new
Linda is definitely right on this one. I just went through this with my parents.
My mother doesn't have enough SS "credits" to get anything for her own retirement. She's been working hard for the past four years to get those credits, and we just found out it wasn't necessary at all. If my Dad dies before her, she'll still get his benefits as a "survivor benefit".
It's complicated. Definitely ask more questions of your accountant.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on January 28, 2005 08:38:56 PM new
You're welcome, maggie. And nothing against your accountant...but two I've dealt with have cost me a bunch of money for NOT have the knowledge of tax laws they would have been expected to know. I'd recommend you call your local SS office directly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 08:39:48 PM new
She would be eligible at the age of 60.
I am so totally confused now.. I will definitely get some answers from my accountant and I will call the SS office as well. Sheesh, and this is the person who does our accounting and taxes.. not feeling very good about things right now.
Thanks again for the info.
Edited to add.. and she also does some investing for us.. time to take a closer look..
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Jan 28, 2005 08:42 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2005 08:40:43 PM new
Yes, Maggie, call your SS office but when they start giving you a Paid Commercial for bush's "reform" plan tell them to shut up...it's not what YOU pay them for.
posted on January 28, 2005 08:52:15 PM new
LOL..Crow.. If I did that,they would hang up on me and then make me wait until I was 90 before I could collect!
I wish I had your brains and spitfire.
"you go girl!" LOL Maggie
posted on January 28, 2005 08:58:19 PM new
Two of the women in my grief group [no dependents], under age 60 applied for the widow's pension and are now receiving their SS benefits. So I know it's paid out at 60. And like I said...they don't reduce the benefits like they do if you take SS early at age 62...rather than waiting until age 67 [or 68 for you]. But at age 60, as a widow, you're eligible for the maximum age 67 [68] benefit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
Another 'flip-flop' by the democratic party. NOW it's no longer a crisis...it's another Bush fallacy. 