PDA

View Full Version : Bush Administration on Social Security (More unbiased coverage!)


Volcana
Jan 6th, 2005, 03:00 AM
NOTE 1: The memo will prove to absolutely correct in about calling the Democrats the 'Party of the Past', if the Dems don't start dealing with the Republicans like they're liars and thieves.

NOTE 2: The stock market in the last four years doesn't make me real sanguine about making up 46% cuts in Social Security benefits.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950/

White House memo: Pitch Social Security doom
Rove aide strategy: Convince public system’s ‘heading for iceberg’

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The success of President Bush’s push to remake Social Security depends on convincing the public that the system is “heading for an iceberg,” according to a White House strategy note that makes the case for cutting benefits promised for the future.

advertisement
Calling the effort “one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times,” Peter Wehner, the deputy to White House political director Karl Rove, says in the e-mail message that a battle over Social Security is winnable for the first time in six decades and could transform the political landscape.

The White House confirmed the authenticity of the e-mail but did not have an immediate comment.

Democrats ‘Party of the Past’
“We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals,” said Wehner, the director of White House Strategic Initiatives. He called the Democratic Party the “party of obstruction and opposition. It is the Party of the Past.”

But the administration must “establish an important premise: the current system is heading toward an iceberg,” Wehner’s e-mail said.

Bush wants to let workers divert some of their payroll taxes into investment accounts similar to a 401(k) plan. That will require convincing the public of the need for immediate change.

“We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course,” the e-mail said. “That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the precondition to authentic reform.”

The system is projected to start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2018, according to Social Security trustees. It can pay full promised benefits until 2042, when about 73 percent can be paid.

Revamping the system to allow investment accounts would not shore up the future finances and would make the financial picture worse. The administration is considering borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion to continue paying benefits to current retirees while tax revenue is diverted into personal accounts, called transition costs, the e-mail said.

Separately, to address the future financial shortfall, the administration is looking at plans to cut future promised benefits, by 46 percent in some cases, with investments expected to make up the difference.

“We’re going to take a very close look at changing the way benefits are calculated,” Wehner’s e-mail said.

Implementing the accounts and avoiding the cuts would require the administration to seek tax increases or raise the retirement age, which is already moving to 67.

lakeway11
Jan 6th, 2005, 05:35 AM
this ponzi scheme should be abolished not "fixed"

Wigglytuff
Jan 6th, 2005, 08:55 AM
i agree, as i am sure everyone does that SS is going to shit.

i think it might be because 50% of taxes go to Lockheed Martin and their cohorts.

i am sure that number is more. a few things i would like to say:

"*Each year, freeloading corporations grab nearly $170 billion in tax-funded federal handouts to help them do the things they should be paying for themselves (and that doesn't even count all the corporate welfare they're getting from state and local governments). That's $1,388 from each of us going to provide welfare to the rich!" (quoted from www.simplerwork.com)
*its not 2 trillion, but how abouts we use the $170 billion a year to build better SS system, fund education**.
see the money is ALREADY there we just need to stop giving welfare to those who have the very most :).

**education (and other PUBLIC works, like health care, police/fire, parks, SS, museums, libraries) not PRIVATE corps Lockheed martin should be getting the lion's share of PUBLIC funds. because as we all know its private corps that count for the bulk of tax spending. (for example FEDERAL (not including state or local) corporate welfare amounts to $170 billion. meanwhile, ALL OF OUR SOCIAL PROGRAMS COMBINED, from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to school lunches to housing assistance, amount to just $50 billion a year. THATS ALL OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS COMBINED COST TAX PAYERS JUST $50BILLION. that means by cutting corporate welfare WE CAN TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND STILL CUT TAXES BY $70 BILLION or leave the social programs as is and use say $100 BILLION MORE FOR EDUCATION, PARKS, POLICE AND FIRE, MUSEUMS AND LIBRARIES AND STILL CUT TAXES BY $70 BILLION. or insert any better use for the $170,000,000,000 tax dollars than welfare for pespi and nike and all other others that milk us dry.

so jiggly's formula: reduce Lockheed's budget + end welfare for large corporations = money for SS, education, health care and tax breaks.

in short, if the tax payers weren't so willing to give thier money away to corporations who have plenty to spare we would be in this mess.

PLEASE NOTE: the JIGGLYPLAN does NOT call for tax increases to wealthy individuals just crackdown on spending and end to corporate welfare.

did i mention an end to corparte welfare? did i meantion the $170,000,000,000 tax dollars that is used as giveaways to coprs for shit they should for anyway?

Volcana
Jan 7th, 2005, 07:18 PM
You could also simply cut benefits by five percent to everyone entering the system after 2010. That would back up the point where the system ran out of money by decades. But we have to remember that the ultimate fount of Bush economics is Grover Nordquist. He WANTS the Federal Deficit run up as high as possible. To force government to stop spending on programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare, because the dollars the Feds have will have to go to debt service, and raising taxes is unpopular with voters.