February 02, 2005
Crisis Amnesia Syndrome
It’s happening again, political amnesia rampant in the liberal leadership. Recently it was the sudden lack of any desire to deal with Saddam Hussein that displayed this quaint condition to the public. A condition that so many in both parties seem to suffer from when not in power. Now it is the Social Security crisis, the very one that they themselves championed during the same years they were calling for the removal of Hussein, that they are claiming is an imagined one.
Let' do what we did with the Iraq quotes in 1998 and go back to see what the Democratic leadership was saying about Social Security then. Taken from a Byron York article on the subject:
"We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system," Clinton said, again in February 1998. "By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."
In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years - by 2032 - "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire."Save Social Security first," said Gore.
"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.
"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.
"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.
Some argue that he was just trying to beat away Republican attempts to give some of the imagined surplus back to the taxpayers, making sure to keep it in Washington where they could keep an eye on it for us, and that could very well have been his motivation. But he did have some of the facts right. A recent look at the issue at Factcheck.org shows us:
But the central point is quite true -- demographic trends make it certain that the current system cannot be maintained without increasing taxes or cutting the growth of future benefits. As recently as 1950 there were 16.5 workers paying Social Security taxes for every one person receiving Social Security benefits, according to statistical tables published annually as part of the Social Security trustees report. Currently, there are 3.3 workers paying in for every one beneficiary receiving benefits, and the situation will worsen dramatically when the post-World War II "baby boom" generation begins reaching age 62 -- the age when many choose to begin receiving early retirement benefits -- in about three years.Within 15 years that ratio is projected to decline to 2.2 workers paying in for every one person getting benefits. And it is forecast to continue declining to 2.0 workers in 2040, when workers who are now in their 20's reach retirement age.
That's a pretty solid projection -- All those who will receive benefits in 2040 have already been born and counted. Changes in projected life expectancies, immigration rates or birth rates could throw it off some, but not much, and not soon. The projection uses "intermediate" assumptions, but even under a "low cost" set of assumptions (birth rates 13% higher, improvements in life expectancy slow by half, and immigration increases 44%) each of today's young workers would have only 2.4 workers supporting them at retirement in 2040. Either way, the system faces an enormous financial crunch.
And of course, to the rescue of the Democrats in not hesitating to mislead and outright lie in order to defeat this president in any way, Moveon.org has falsely claimed that the Bush plan will cut senior's benefits in half. Just another "scare the old people" tactic that is used every time this subject or an election comes around.
The simple fact is that people who are in their middle to late 30's would most definitely like to see a better return on their investment into a retirement plan that we would see with social security, and we realize that that can be achieved safely and securely in very low risk, long term investment into bonds and other secure investments.
How do we know it will work?
Over 20 years ago Galvaston County asked Rick Gornto to develop a plan to create a privately funded retirement plan with a life insurance and disability income component comparable to Social Security. In 1981 over 70% of the government employees voted to adopt it, dropping out of the Old Age Assistance and Disability portion of social security.
What did they get?
In Mr. Gorntos' plan employees don't worry about mutual fund choices. Instead, the plan manager pools the money and loans it to a major financial institution for a competitive and guaranteed return. The return has varied from 5 to 15 percent without risk to participants. Administration and record keeping are simple.Although returns are lower than stock market returns, the benefits payable to retiring workers are generally higher than Social Security benefits. According to First Financial Benefits--- the firm that administers the plan--- a high-income worker (earning $51,263) would receive a lifetime income of $3,846 a month. That's 90 percent of pre-retirement income. The same worker would receive only $1,540 a month (36 percent of pre-retirement income) from Social Security.
Low-income workers, who receive disproportionately high benefits under Social Securities' benefit formula, also do better under the private plan. A worker with an annual income of $17,124 would receive $1,285 a month from the plan. Again, that’s 90 percent of pre-retirement income. The same worker would receive only $782 a month (54.8 percent of pre-retirement income) from Social Security.
Workers also have a choice. They can receive a lifetime annuity or they can take the money as a lump sum.
Disability and life insurance benefits are also better. Each worker has three years of annual wages in life insurance--- a minimum of $50,000 and a maximum of $150,000. Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, told me of a judges' widow who received $150,000 in life insurance coverage and $125,000 that had accumulated in the judges' retirement account. She would have received only $255 from Social Security because there were no children eligible for Social Security survivors' benefits. The widow would not have been eligible for full Social Security retirement benefits until she reached age 65.
Similarly, disability benefits are about twice as large as the benefits the same worker would receive from Social Security.
In fact, much of this plan and new changes and innovations to it can be seen at The Institute for Policy Innovation. They state quite clearly that Social Security *IS* becoming insolvent. In less than 14 years the system will be paying out more than it takes in. Why continue with a system so outdated and dysfunctional when we have better, more innovative and secure ways to provide better retirement plans to everyone at a lower cost to the taxpayer?
The Democrats, unfortunately, appear to be the party of "No Success That We Dont Create" instead of doing what it best for all of us. Instead of working with the current president to continue the call for saving Social Security that president Clinton first alerted us to, they are abandoning the cause now because a success in that area would support the opposing party instead of their own at a time when their hold on power has almost all but shriveled up. And they wonder why that has happened? Contrary to what they might think, the American populace is not as stupid as they are led to believe.
Posted by Rhinehold at February 2, 2005 04:30 PMWow, a lot of inaccuracies. Short on time, let me begin with 2. First, all liberals are not Democrats. Many folks are liberal on some issues, conservative on others, such as myself. If you want to speak for Democrats, say, Democrats. There are liberals in the Republican Party, so use of that term is misleading.
Second, note Clinton’s dates. The system is now solvent out to about 2048 to 2050 before deficit spending by the government is required. Additionally, the Government just announced yesterday that the SS system will have surpluses until 2020, not 2018 as a result of accounting corrections. The surpluses will then carry the system out to 2048 to 2050.
Hence, there is no crisis today.
Oh yeah, one more thing. Redirecting revenues from the SS system into Private Savings Accounts, will hasten the Soc. Sec. programs demise, not save it. To keep the President’s promise to cover all current and near future retirees, a 1 to 2 trillion dollar addition to our national debt will have to take place, in addition to the 9 to 10 Trillion national debt Bush and the GOP Congress has already created 10 years out, if not more. Remember, Bush has a veto pen, and he came into office with a national debt in the 5 Trillion range. It is now approaching 8 trillion, and CBO projects another 1.2 to 1.4 added as a result of Bush’s agenda NOT including Soc. Sec. Add the President’s plan and we are looking at $11 Trillion national debt minimum. That is a tax debt of $36,666.66 for every man, woman and newborn in this country. That is $68,750 tax debt for every working person in America. And that does not include the rising interest rate on that debt, currently about a billion a day.
Bush plan to save SS will bankrupt the nation and put a burden on future tax payers that will be unbelievable. These are the details the President will NOT talk about tonight.
Posted by: David R Remer at February 2, 2005 05:42 PMI’m sorry, but I don’t see the innacuracy here. Your assertion that the system is solvent through 2050 is just not correct, as FactCheck.org has shown us, we have around 15 years to do something about the issue, not 45. What has changed since 1998 that has put is in BETTER financial health? I thought we were in the middle of the worst economy since the depression? (A statement I disagree with of course).
In addition, if there was no ‘crisis’, the plan would be better for everyone, as I demonstrated in current working plans that have been proven over the past 20 years. And it can be done without the 1 trillion increase in spending. I’m not saying that Bush’s plan will go that route, or that it will be any resemblance to the one that I displayed here, but since we don’t know what the plan is it’s a little hard to already discard it out of hand, isn’t it? Especially when we do know that there are ways of accomplishing this without the fearmongering that we are destroying an American Institution?
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2005 06:48 PMThe one thing that completely baffles me is the argument ‘there is no crisis today’.
I have not heard anyone say that there is a crisis NOW * there WILL BE one in the future.
If this is a known fact, why would ANYONE not be trying to stop it?
Knowing that it is going to be a problem I would much rather they work hard to find solutions. Instead we have people who once said there was a problem saying there isn’t - are they claiming it magically disappeared or they were mistaken?
I heard today that benefits will start decreasing for those age 55 and below if something isn’t done.
I don’t want them raising the retirement age to 90 !
What do they care if they ‘make us work’ until we are 90??? That’s all we need. More older people staying on the job and not retiring and giving the job to the younger people trying to raise families.
The politicians get nice retirement benefits - THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR.
Does anyone know exactly how much money is spent each year just in retirement benefits for politicians? I sure would like to know.
Rhinehold, you are not staying up on the news. See the following from the Washington Post article a couple days ago:
Bush plans to target Senate Democrats facing reelection with speeches and town hall meetings on Thursday and Friday. He suffered a minor political blow yesterday, when the Congressional Budget Office released new projections for Social Security’s financial health, pushing forward the year when Social Security benefits begin to exceed Social Security taxes. The CBO now projects that date for 2020, a year later than its earlier assessment and two years earlier than the Social Security Administration’s projection.Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 09:08 PM
Rhinehold, how do you divert 1/6 to 1/3 of current SS revenues from an as yet unknown number of citizens who choose PSA’s, and not reduce the surplus currently expected to be depleted in 2020? It is a simple proposition. Take money out, shorten the life of the program. Very simple. Bush’s PSA’s are designed to end Soc. Sec, not shore it up. His intent is to create an entirely new system in the private sector to replace the Soc. Sec. program we know today.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 2, 2005 09:13 PMDavid -
Fine. So what do we do? I’m not going to collect a cent of social security before 2048, and I want to know whether I need to save independently. I want reform so that I’ll get the 12% of my paycheck that I’m currently paying out back. Is that too much to ask?
It boggles the mind that the Democrats have not come out with an opposition plan yet. It’s not as if there are any economists out there saying that SocSec is *not* going to run out of money. They all agree on that, and they agree that it will probably happen between 2040 and 2060.
I don’t think much of Bush’s plan myself. Paul Krugman (who is a Princeton econ prof) wrote an op-ed piece with a very convincing rebuttal of the Bush plan. However, he joined the ranks of liberals not speaking out with an alternative.
I’m reasonably sure SocSec is going to be in crisis when I retire if nothing is done. I’m reasonably sure the Bush plan won’t work as intended. Can you give me an alternative?
The Argument is not whether Social Security will be a problem (it will be), the problem is if the Bush Plan will make it worse. You Republicans still have not mention England and Argentina in you litany of Pro’s. Why don’t you Conservatives find out if England’s Privatization did them any good?
Posted by: Aldous at February 2, 2005 11:31 PMWell, it took me a while to get past the bullshit trolling at the beginning of your article, but once past that, it’s quite good. I am so completely tired of this whole philosophy of dismissing the entire Democratic Party and its agenda for the capricious rantings of our transient representatives. Find a real argument.
But once you get to the heart of the matter and give the great example of the Galveston model, I was impressed. I have been open to the idea of privatization of SS from the beginning. I am simply wary. And I am especially wary of any policy suggestions from this administration. The Galveston model, though, is very compelling.
As far as accepting the hair-on-fire imperative for some radical shift in SS policy. I don’t buy it. No one has yet presented any compelling evidence that SS will go broke in the next decade. So let’s wait for a competent administration that we can trust to create a viable transition into the newer model.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 2, 2005 11:54 PMChops,
The original language of the bill presented by FDR’s representative Houghton, presented an insurance program - NOT a retirement program. Once the lobbyists representing interests in terms of getting paid back for their premiums got through with it, it became a hybrid of insurance and retirement.
FDR had the right idea, an insurance program based on actuarial science in which benefits were paid only to those who experienced a loss covered under the program and in which all citizens paid premiums equally for the same protection. Thus, if the wealthy lost their wealth, they would be eligible for benefits just as a blue collar working person who was befallen by adversity would be protected against poverty in their retirement years. Same benefit for all (insurance against poverty) for the same premium paid by all.
The fiscal problem SS faces in a few decades is founded in the premise of paying back an investment to all premium payers - that is not an insurance program - but an investment program and one that was never fiscally sound. The idea of paying Bill Gates SS benefits is absurd in the extreme given the deficits SS will incur in a few decades.
If the program were modified back to its original design, as a national insurance plan against poverty, making SS viable through the baby boom retirement years and beyond becomes a simple matter.
The SS Admin Trustees state to get over the baby boom hump, payroll taxes would only have to increase 1.8% total, meaning only 9/10’s of one percenct from worker’s wages, with a matching 9/10’s of one percent by employers.
And to sustain it infinitely, 3.5% total increase in payroll taxes, or 1.75 percent increase in worker’s deductions and 1.75% in employer deductions.
That is another option.
Then, and this is my preferred option which takes the system back to its original intent very simply:
1) Means test benefits such that only those in threat of falling into poverty receive them.
2) Eliminate the caps on income deductions such that Bill Gates pays in his share on his total income just as a middle class worker earning $87,600 or less does.
If done within the next couple years, these two steps would pay for the baby boom generation, larger surpluses would return after the baby boomers pass on allowing a reduction in the premium rate deductions from payroll or income.
It really is that simple. Why Democrats don’t adopt one or the other of these options is beyond me.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 02:37 AMChops said:
It boggles the mind that the Democrats have not come out with an opposition plan yet. It’s not as if there are any economists out there saying that SocSec is *not* going to run out of money.First of all, there is no plan yet to oppose. We have been given very few details. Second, the idea of a Democratic counter proposal ignores the current political reality. A Democratic plan will not be passed AND there is very little evidence to indicate that the Republicans will be interested in negotiations. Since everyone who looks at the numbers honestly agrees that any problems coming strictly from Social Security will occur decades from now I am content that my party take the stance that “There is no crisis” and attempt to get the focus on actual pressing problems like the unimaginable budget deficit and the true crisis of medical costs. Posted by: Mike Houser at February 3, 2005 03:43 AM
It’s important to note that the Galveston model that you discuss is very different from individual private accounts. In Galveston, contributions were pooled, and then lent out as a bloc. Contributors didn’t have choices about where to invest, the manager (a municipal employee, I imagine) made a decision for all of them.
This actually isn’t that different from what social security does now; the only difference is that rather than loaning contributions to a private entity, the SSA “loans” them to the government by buying Treasury securities. Since treasuries earn a relatively low return, I have no doubt that Galveston could easily realize a better return than Social Security by investing in, say, blue-chip corporate bonds.
But this plan is not workable on a national scale. Can you imagine a bunch of SSA bureaucrats actively managing a surplus fund that now stands at well over a trillion dollars? It’s not hard to imagine what a disaster that would be, and, indeed, no one is proposing it.
So, instead, we have individual accounts. There are several reasons why these are worse than the Galveston plan. First, management fees will be much higher, because there will be no economies of scale. Indeed, the plan will probably expand the Second, risk is much higher. Simply put, you have much better investment opportunities if you’re investing tens of millions of dollars (which was probably the scale in Galveston) than if you’re investing tens of thousands. Finally, risk isn’t pooled, so there’s the possibility of people making really bad investment decisions and being impoverished in old age. The point of Social Security is to make sure that old people aren’t starving to death; I think that goal is worthy enough that we can sactifice a couple of percentage points of return in order to minimize risk for everybody.
Posted by: Sean Campbell at February 3, 2005 06:24 AMIt’s important to note that the Galveston model that you discuss is very different from individual private accounts. In Galveston, contributions were pooled, and then lent out as a bloc.
I noticed.
But this plan is not workable on a national scale. Can you imagine a bunch of SSA bureaucrats actively managing a surplus fund that now stands at well over a trillion dollars?
Obviously, but what would prevent such measures from being pooled in a more local manner?
I’ve already expressed my doubts over Bush’s plan. It’s much too meager to justify the risk it poses. But I don’t think this is an either/or thing, though it may seem that way because that’s how politicians and the media prefer their issues.
The major change, which Bush has failed to impress simply because he keeps his language much too simple, is that the private accounts would amount to personal assets rather than Congressional benevolence held in reserve. The former is the individual’s property, the latter is the state’s discretion. As long as the risk/reward scenario is reasonable, I would prefer the former, both for myself and for public policy.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 3, 2005 06:59 AMJoseph Briggs, you do realize that the insurance aspects of SS are completely eliminated under the President’s plan, don’t you? Let’s say you are 22, and begin your career, your making 35 thou a year. In two years you marry and in 3.5 you have a child. In the 4th year of your career, you die, or are disabled, unable to work. If you die, your wife and child receive benefits under SS until your child is 18 (or later if in college, perhaps, not sure on that one) and your wife receives a benefit all those years your child is growing up as well.
Under Bush’s plan, your wife and child receive whatever you saved in the 4 years you worked plus earnings, if any, and that’s it. There is no insurance aspect under Bush’s plan. No safety net, no protection against poverty for your wife and child.
Bush’s plan will benefit the wealthier Americans who can afford insurance premiums and savings, and 401K, up to a point. I say up to a point, because the 3 to 5 trillion dollars his plan will add to the national debt over the baby boom generation’s retirement under the current system, will put our national debt at about 13 or 14 Trillion dollars and by god, if you are working your taxes will be going up something awful.
Now if Congress actually saves SS instead of bankrupting it along with the our economy by
1) means testing benefits and
2) eliminating caps on income for FICA premiums
no addition debt is added to the national debt, the safety net remains in place, the wealthier Americans won’t be wading through a sea of beggars to get to work or home, and they won’t see any return on their FICA if they retire wealthy, but, the American middle class remains widespread, poverty in this nation is kept down, and the economy has a chance to recover from its current debt loads over the next few decades.
Seems like a no brainer to me. Fix it via 1 and 2 above rather than destroy it and the economy the way the President’s will.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 08:17 AMSean, good observations Sean, and I agree entirely.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 08:19 AMHey! I have a wacky idea. Let’s take the two trillion taxpayer dollars that Bush wants to waste on private accounts, and use it to cover the ever narrowing gap predicted to occur during the temporary the baby-boomer spike.
“they are abandoning the cause now because a success in that area would support the opposing party instead of their own”
This quote says it all Rhinehold and this is what its all about now.
Instead of viable alternatives, we get the “wait and see” solution which is just as ridiculous as the “tax cuts for the wealthy” preaching.
I’m no fan of SS or clinton(blah) but something tells me if he would have proposed this idea when he was president, those opposing it now would have supported it then.
It’s all about the party, not the people and that is where the real problem is.
Instead of viable alternatives, we get the “wait and see” solution
Alternative to what, kctim? There’s no plan, just a couple guiding “principles”. One of which is the wacky private account idea.
The only thing Democrats are waiting for is to see if Congressional Republicans are serious about strengthening the program, or not.
Save Social Security first,” said Gore.“Save Social Security first,” said Gephardt.
“Save Social Security first,” said Kennedy.
“Save Social Security first,” said Boxer.
This whole thread cracks me up. If Republicans actually gave a crap about Social Security, they really would have saved Social Security first. But they don’t give a crap. They’ve been trash-talking it for 60 years
The first thing Republicans did was pass - not one, not two, but three - massive tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich. The feigned indignation is killing me.
AP, you have hit on something. Bush can’t pass his SS reform without Democratic votes in Congress. I suspect Rove & Co. would like nothing better than for the Democrats to announce their own version, so that the GOP can pick up one or to aspects to use in forging a compromise with a few Dem. votes to insure his passage for privatizing and ending the program as we know it.
It may be a very wise political strategy for the Dem’s. NOT to offer a counter proposal until Rep.’s have detailed their own plan.
I saw this morning in a story that Bush is willing to look at lifting or eliminating the cap on income from which deductions are halted - a likely aspect of a Democratic Proposal. The game for Bush is to pickup Dem. votes in Congress. The Game for Dem.’s is to stop him without appearing obstructionist.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 10:57 AMDavid, Sen. Reid announced that Democrats won’t offer a proposal until they see what Republicans are offering.
As for “stopping him”, I think the only aspect of Bush’s “principles” that Democrats are dead set against is the private accounts. If he wants to talk means testing, or alternative formulations, or even changing the retirement age - as long as it strengthens the program - I think we’re going to listen.
Have the Dems offered any “guiding principles” yet? (honest question, I’m really not sure if they have or not)
And if Congressional Republicans think this Bush plan may help strengthen and the Dems dont, shouldnt the Dems be putting out a plan that they think will strengthen it? Even if its just something as simple as “guiding principles?”
I’m sorry, but I think it has more to do with David’s quote:
“The game for Bush is to pickup Dem. votes in Congress. The Game for Dem.’s is to stop him without appearing obstructionist.”
than it does with any of them actually caring about whats best for Americans.
It is a GAME to all of them. Bush wants his plan to pass so he will look good and the Dems want to wait until they have the Presidency so they can pass a plan and be the ones who look good.
Posted by: kctim at February 3, 2005 11:45 AMI like your ideas, too, David. And like I’ve said, I don’t like Bush’s plan. And I don’t trust him to work with Congress to hash out any reasonable derivative of his plan. Your concerns are completely valid, and I understand them well since I was basically rasied on SS and an Air Force pension. My point is, I think the other side has valid concerns, too. If they could use all their hand waving to put out their flaming hair, I think we, as a nation, could get a lot more out of this discussion than, “SS is going bankrupt!” “No it’s not.” “Yes it is.” “No it’s not.”
I also think that a radical shift in policy should be avoided.
I mentioned, and I will continue to impress, that I do not trust the Bush administration, authors of No Chld Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits, and the Iraq War, to prescribe such policy. But I don’t think this invalidates those who are justifiably concerned about the future of SS.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at February 3, 2005 12:18 PMAP:
“If Republicans actually gave a crap about Social Security, they really would have saved Social Security first. But they don’t give a crap. They’ve been trash-talking it for 60 years.”
So true! They’re like vultures circling.
“The first thing Republicans did was pass - not one, not two, but three - massive tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich. The feigned indignation is killing me.”
Me too. SS privitisation, like tort reform and doing away with the “death” tax, is all about making the wealthy wealthier. The fatcats on Wall Street are simultaneously drooling and rubbing their hands together at the prospect of finally getting what they’ve wanted for oh-so-many years.
David
“It may be a very wise political strategy for the Dem’s. NOT to offer a counter proposal until Rep.’s have detailed their own plan.”
That may well be true in the halls of the Capitol, but the fact that they aren’t throwing their own ideas into the media ring when Bush is threatening this radical change, might make them appear pretty damn clueless and ineffectual in the eyes of American voters who are very concerned, as well as confused, over this issue.
kctim:
“Bush wants his plan to pass so he will look good and the Dems want to wait until they have the Presidency so they can pass a plan and be the ones who look good.”
I honestly think the only ones Dubya gives a damn about impressing are those in his own social class. At least the Dems care something about the average persons opinion regarding their performance.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 3, 2005 05:39 PMHave the Dems offered any “guiding principles” yet?
kctim, in 1998 the SS surplus was projected to run out in 2032. Last year, it was projected to run out in 2042. Now, it’s projected to run out in 2052…
You see where I’m going with this?
The problem is caused by a temporary spike of baby-boomers retiring. For argument’s sake, lets say the last of the baby-boomers retires in 2072. After that, the number of workers supporting each retiree starts to increase again.
So the 20% shortfall in benefits that needs to be covered only lasts for a period of 20 years.
In 1998, the period that needed to be covered was 40 years. Last year it was 30 years. This year it’s 20 years. A few years from now..? Who knows. There might never be a problem at all.
That’s why Democrats are reluctant to muck with the system. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If the Republicans want to make changes that will truly strengthen Social Security, all well and good. But we’re certainly not going to let Bush privatize or otherwise dismantle it.
Adrienne
“I honestly think the only ones Dubya gives a damn about impressing are those in his own social class.”
I believe your wrong about the social class thing, that is just an easy excuse used way to often. But hey, the reasons I have for disliking Bush would probably get the same reactions from you.
“At least the Dems care something about the average persons opinion regarding their performance.”
I am saddened to see that you have become so jaded that you actually believe a person can be judged on whether they are good or bad just because of their Dem or Rep LABEL.
AP
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
Ok, I get why Dems don’t want to come up any fresh ideas for SS now, thank you.
But something that really bothers me is this:
Why was it when clinton and gore said it was broke, all DEMS agreed and said we need to fix it?
While some of the arguements are against the Bush plan, most are simply just saying “its not broke now, it was when clinton said it but it fixed itself.”
Adrienne said: “That may well be true in the halls of the Capitol, but the fact that they aren’t throwing their own ideas into the media ring when Bush is threatening this radical change, might make them appear pretty damn clueless and ineffectual in the eyes of American voters who are very concerned, as well as confused, over this issue.”
That is an astute observation Adrienne, and the Dem’s need to weight the opportunity and outcome cost of either strategy. They are on a tightrope on this issue…. that’s for sure.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2005 05:44 PMWhy was it when clinton and gore said it was broke, all DEMS agreed and said we need to fix it?
Heheh. kctim, first of all, they never said it was broke. They saw the same possibility for a temporary 20% shortfall in benefit payments that we do.
I’m pretty sure the handwringing was part of a plan to keep Congressional Republicans from using the budget surplus for tax cuts that disproportionatley favor the rich. Remember, Republicans were insisting SS wasn’t in any danger and were making fun of Gore’s lockbox idea because they had other plans for the surplus.
Gore’s plan was to put half the surplus in a lockbox (in other words, make sure the federal budget had a cushion for emergencies, like.. oh.. a recession, or a terrorist strike, or a war or something), and then give the rest to the middle class through ending the marriage penalty, increasing child tax credits, and expanding the 10% bracket.
Republicans blew the whole wad on tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich, and now look at the budget problems we have.
If Gore had been appointed President, this wouldn’t even be an issue and I would have gotten a bigger tax cut… Oh, well. :)
kctim:
“I believe your wrong about the social class thing, that is just an easy excuse used way to often.”
I’m going to share something with you, Tim. You might think its odd, but it is a list I’ve been compiling since 2000. Its helped me keep track of his sins against us, and his rewards to corporations and the wealthy. (I stopped making the list right after the election - too depressing). I believe when you look at it, you’ll understand why I always bring up the social class thing.
* Suspends Clinton’s “roadless rule” protecting nearly sixty million acres of forests from logging and road-building.
* Signs anti-union executive order - including measures to prohibit project labor agreements at federal construction sites and to remove job protections for union employees whose companies lose federal contracts.
* Opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
* Congress repeals ergonomic regulations designed to protect workers from repetitive stress injuries.
* Executive order - prevents mechanics at Northwest Airlines from striking.
* Abandons campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
* Admin. moves to overturn regulation reducing allowable level of arsenic in drinking water.
* Admin. abandons international effort to crack down on offshore tax havens.
* Cheney task force releases National Energy Policy report - calls for weaker environmental regulations and massive subsidies for oil and gas, coal, and nuclear power industries.
* $1.35 trillion tax cut.
* Bush refuses to impose federal price controls to curtail Calif. energy crisis.
* Cheney refuses to release records of energy task force meetings to General Accounting Office.
* Justice Department drops effort to break up Microsoft
* $15 billion airline bailout.
* Repeals “responsible contractor rule” - formerly required scrutiny of safety and environmental law violations in awarding of federal contracts.
* Clear Skies Initiative - calling for voluntary reductions of three major pollutants -delays by a decade reductions required under existing law.
* IRS records reveal increases in audits of the working poor. Audits of large corporations and the rich drop to all-time lows.
* Bush’s welfare reform proposal advises paying “workfare” recipients less than the minimum wage.
* EPA alters definition of fill material - allows coal companies to dump rubble from mountaintop removal mining into valleys and streams.
* Senate joins House in approving “fast-track” trade authority for pres.
* National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration weakens standards on under-inflated tires, despite Firestone’s hundreds of deaths.
* SEC Chairman says he’ll release the entire files on investigation into Bush’s sale of $800,000 in Harken Energy stock if asked by pres. - Bush doesn’t ask.
* Bush threatens veto of Homeland Security bill unless workers in department are stripped of civil service protections.
* Bush administration issues new medical privacy regulations - don’t require patient consent to share records with insurance and pharmaceutical companies, or restrict use of medical information for marketing purposes.
* Healthy Forests Initiative - allows more logging old-growth forests, limits environmental impact reviews and public comment.
* Bush invokes Taft-Hartley Act to end an 11-day lockout of longshore workers that has shut down West Coast ports.
* Office of Management and Budget instructs EPA to value lives of seniors at 63 percent that of younger Americans in cost-benefit analysis of imposing new air pollution regulations.
* Transportation Security Administration bars 56,000 airport screeners from unionizing.
* Administration issues guidelines that could exempt up to twenty million acres of “isolated” wetlands and seasonal streams from protection under the Clean Water Act.
* Admin. seeks exemptions to international treaty banning ozone-depleting chemical methyl bromide (golf courses).
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awards no-bid contract with $7 billion limit to Halliburton subsidiary for fighting oil well fires in Iraq.
* Department of Labor proposes new overtime rules that could strip millions of extra pay by increasing number of exempt “white-collar” workers.
* Executive order shielding oil companies in Iraq from legal liability.
* Signs $350 billion tax cut - half the size of original proposal-slashes tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
* FCC increases media ownership cap - allows one company to own TV stations reaching up to 45 percent of country. Lifts ban on single company’s owning newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations in same city.
* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejects Calif. request to cancel $12 billion in long-term contracts signed during state’s energy crisis - despite evidence of market manipulation by energy companies.
* SEC chairman Donaldson endorses House bill seeking to limit ability of state regulators to oversee the securities industry.
* Congress exposes Pentagon plans to create a futures trading market to forecast terrorist attacks!
* EPA - agency downplayed health risks from the collapse of the WTC under pressure from White House.
* EPA repeals New Source Review rule - had required electric utilities to install anti-pollution equipment when making major upgrades at coal-fired power plants.
* Senate blocks energy bill (traces origins to Cheney’s secret energy task force) - provides billions of dollars in subsidies to biggest supporters in oil, gas, coal, and electric utility industries.
* Congressional Republicans and White House agree to “compromise” media ownership cap of 39 percent. Viacom News Corp. will not have to sell any tv stations.
* $400 billion Medicare bill passed - prevents the govt from negotiating lower prices for drugs with pharmaceutical companies.
* Administration opens 300,000 acres of old-growth timber in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging.
* Interior Department opens nine million acres of wilderness on Alaska’s North Slope to oil drilling.
* Council of Economic Advisers - positions at fast-food restaurants can be counted as manufacturing jobs.
* Medicare actuary claims admin. threatened to fire him if he told Congress that the White House Medicare plan would cost more than $400 billion.
* Supreme Court rules Cheney doesn’t have to give up records of secretive energy task force, sends case back to a lower court.
* National Labor Relations Board reverses decision - rules that graduate teaching assistants at private universities have no right to organize unions.
* Administration lawyers move to block lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers - consumers may not seek damages for injuries received from products approved by FDA.
* With no public ceremony (aboard Air Force One), Bush signs $136 billion corporate tax cut bill— tobacco companies, oil refineries, SUV buyers to benefit.
All that in just four years. Now do you see what I mean?
“But hey, the reasons I have for disliking Bush would probably get the same reactions from you.”
Go ahead and tell me if you feel like it. I assure you, nothing could surprise me.
“I am saddened to see that you have become so jaded that you actually believe a person can be judged on whether they are good or bad just because of their Dem or Rep LABEL.”
After the discussions we’ve had, I am rather surprised that you would say this. Truthfully, I’m not that jaded, and I don’t believe a person is good or bad simply because their political affiliation. The Dems I was referring to in my reply to you are the ones in Congress. And I stand by that assertion. I do indeed think they concern themselves far more often with the kind of issues that are on the minds of the average American.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 5, 2005 12:31 AMI do indeed think they concern themselves far more often with the kind of issues that are on the minds of the average American.
Sen. Boxer did the coolest thing. On her website last month, she had a big list of issues and a comment box and asked Californians to choose or write in the top 3 issues we thought she should focus on this year.
If more of our representatives made it that easy and unintimidating for their constituents to give feedback, they might not listen to the lobbyists as much.
Just as impressive, she sent me an email last summer warning me about an earthquake predicted to occur in SoCal, and a checklist of emergency items. She rules!
AP:
“Sen. Boxer did the coolest thing. On her website last month, she had a big list of issues and a comment box and asked Californians to choose or write in the top 3 issues we thought she should focus on this year.”
Yeah, I’ve seen that on her website. Actually, for several years I’ve been receiving long check lists in the mail meant to focus in on issues that were important to me from Senator Boxer. (I had assumed that everyone in California was getting them, but now I wonder whether I’ve only been receiving them because I’ve pestered her on the phone and in writing so much! :^)
“If more of our representatives made it that easy and unintimidating for their constituents to give feedback, they might not listen to the lobbyists as much.”
I agree 100%.
“She rules!”
Absolutely.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 8, 2005 01:29 PM
