The Republican Push To Privatize Social Security Is Back!
It is hard to believe, but the idea of privatizing Social Security, thought to have been killed and buried in 2005 (with the help of Josh Marshall and TPM Cafe bloggers), could return – like Dracula – from the dead after the 2006 elections. You won’t hear many candidates for Congress broadcasting their support for privatization – certainly not before the election if they can help it. But most Republicans quietly remain true believers. Some have dared to come out publicly in past weeks stating that, given the chance in 2007, they will push privatization again.
Those publicly promising to revisit privatization are Republicans who don't have to stand for reelection, and those who think they have safe seats. Public statements have come from President Bush and his Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, Treasurer Secretary Henry Paulson, House Majority Leader John Boehner, and Rep. Jim McCrery, who's likely to become the next Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
A new report by the Campaign for America's Future examines the on-the-record pro-privatization quotes and votes of 2006 incumbents and challengers whose races could swing the House or Senate toward a majority for privatization. At a recent press conference and video cast, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) shared the following call to action:
"Those of us who led the fight a year ago to defeat this misguided scheme must rally to defend Social Security once again, because the threat is real, and the fate of Social Security as we know it will depend on this year's election."
While no one knows for sure what the 110th Congress will look like, there is a distinct possibility that a renewed attempt to push privatization through Congress could succeed. Privatization will gain a clear boost if pro-privatizers gain seats, and the large bloc of GOP members who've avoided taking strong positions can be pressured to vote the party line. But, fortunately, that kind of shift is only likely if the privatizers are successful in hiding their unpopular views.
So as a public service, from now until November, using the Campaign for America's Future candidate matrix as a beginning, grassroots citizen and labor groups across the country --working together with bloggers and other concerned citizens under the banner of Americans United -- will be demanding to know where candidates stand.
When most voters learn that their candidate is willing to privatize Social Security they are usually moved to vote for his or her opponent. So, with a concerted voter education drive it might be possible to drive a stake into the heart of the privatization efforts for good. But we have to be vigilant. Just like Dracula, once they get their teeth into a favorite ideological issue, right wingers keep coming back.
Here are some true pieces of trivia on why Democrats hate the idea of privatized Social Security:
1)Social Security is OUR bread and butter program and no Republican will get credit for implimenting much needed reforms.
2)Privatization would afford the individual more say in their own future. We cannot allow this because the Federal Government should have the power to control people's futures. That is why we need a large, bureaucratic Federal program so we can greatly increase taxes and then waste the money all in the name of creating a stronger, more centralized power structure in Washington.
3)This is perhaps the ONE solitary issue that can unite everyone in our party. It provides a great avenue to forming a common front against the absurdity of the Republican leadership. Forget that we have no alternative to the GOP's privatization plan, we can merely sweep it under the rug for several more years.
August 15, 2006 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that Democrats hate privatization of Social Security because it is a fake solution to a misunderstanding of what Social Security is? Republicans would manage to make a problem far worse.
Contrary to popular propaganda, money paid by workers goes to retirees rather than to any fund of any kind. It is not insurance. It is a horribly regressive tax that benefits the wealthiest part of the population at the expense of the neediest.
Piling on another program with a mandated savings would be another costly monstrosity.
The best way to "fix" Social Security is first to recognize what it is and not to make it worse.
August 15, 2006 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above comment uprated by me because it was unfairly downrated on content, with a zero and a one.
New raters: please read Josh Marshall's rating guidelines; we don't use ratings here to express disagreement with an opinion, especially not zero ratings, unless your purpose is to change this place to an echo chamber by chasing away anyone with a contrarian point.
Edit to add: I see the rater who gave the one chose to remove it. Thank you from those of us who like a mixed forum.
August 15, 2006 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
fine, I'll raise it to a 2 but this
"2)Privatization would afford the individual more say in their own future. We cannot allow this because the Federal Government should have the power to control people's futures. That is why we need a large, bureaucratic Federal program so we can greatly increase taxes and then waste the money all in the name of creating a stronger, more centralized power structure in Washington."
is not a productive comment. It's just a toll making accusations without backing them up. No one thinks the argument against privitazation is because dems want the govenment to control people's lives.
IrnBru001's blog
August 15, 2006 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bureaucratic? Social Security has an overhead of something like less than 1%, what fees does your money manager charge?
Oh, and the alternative to the GOP's secret plan to privatize is ... uh ... Social Security.
August 15, 2006 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Democrats don't make: Stop the Republican Plan to Privatize Social Security, end the guranteed benefits and hand your money over to underregulated Wall Streeters, then we deserve to lose.
Seniors vote! It aint sexy like Iraq and FISA, but we should push Social Security defense and reforming MedicareD.
August 15, 2006 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is Social Security.
The money goes into US Treasury Saving Bonds. It's essentially a legal IOU. That's what Social Security is.
Now, the government spends that money, sure, and it shouldn't, but it's legally obligated to pay money out (as it always has and will for at least 50 years) and it expects to be able to do that based on future revenues.
August 15, 2006 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
the amazing thing to me is that, having routed the republican attempt to eviscerate social security, the dems then simply sat back.
if they don't start speaking up again now - preferably, with a nice, simple "there they go again" voice - we will, sooner or later, lose this program.
look how long the gop was willing to work to eliminate the estate tax: they didn't ever take a defeat as final, and they won't take a defeat as final here, either.
the basic reason why bush and the current gop want to kill social security is that they've spent the "surplus." i get the lockbox was a metaphor and that money is fungible and all the rest, but the bottom line is, at some point, the general fund is going to need to redeem the IOUs, which will require a tax hike. this is anathema to the modern gop, so the program must be gutted.
August 15, 2006 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
philgoblue's comment is more mistaken than correct, I believe. As I understand it, current Social Security revenue from taxpayers is used to pay current Social Security recipients. To that extent, it is correct to call the Social Security deduction a tax...and one that weighs proportionally more heavily on low income earners than high income earners, since it is only on wages (not capital gains or dividends), and because it is only on the first $95000 or so of earned income. Thus, it really is regressive.
However, at the current moment, owing to reforms in the 1980s (?), the income from this (regressive) tax is greater than the cost of current benefits. The _surplus_ is therefore put into the equivalent of Treasury Bills. This is what the Republic party likes to call "IOU"s. Those T-Bills, together with the reinvested income they earn (just like any bond), are there to cover the benefits in the future, when current revenue will not be enough to pay all benefits due. According to calculations made nowadays by the Social Security Trustees, that pool of bonds will run out somewhere around 2046 (depending very critically on what economic and interest rate assumptions you make, as well as cost predictions based on future costs).
This 'running out in 2046' is what the Republic party is peddling as a "crisis". In 2046 (if nothing was done in the meantime, and if all the economic assumptions turned out to be exactly true), Federal taxes would have to rise sharply to cover the cost of benefits owed, since the social security tax at that time would cover only a part of the cost, and there would be no funds left to pay for it. In reality, taxes might well have to go up (assuming nothing done and assumptions right) much earlier -- as early as the early 2020s -- because paying off all those T-bills will soak up Federal income as soon as the Social Security Administration starts redeeming them, and as is well known, Republic party irresponsibility has put us back on the deficit track.
These are real issues, and deserve attention, but we have a whole lot of other crises to worry about in the meantime, too.
August 15, 2006 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg's points 1 and 2 bear some relation to reality: it's clear that Social Security plays a banner role for the Democratic party--largely because it was a major political acheivement for the common good brought about by a Democratic president over die-hard Republic party resistance.
However, Gettysburg's point 2 is "unproductive" at best -- not because it's ad hominem or rude, to be sure -- but because it is prepackaged cant that does not address the issue at hand. Even if expressed politely, the notion that "all democrats want Washington to control people's futures" is not a contribution to debate: it's a red flag piece of ideology meant to distract us from substance. As members of the reality-based community, we should disdain such nonsense (and avoid its equivalents ourselves). Ignoring it allows it to perpetuate itself (though I will wait to see whether Gettysburg can actually articulate this beyond the crude form its in), but paying attention is more than it deserves. It's thus tempting to downrate and move on...
August 15, 2006 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I really don't see us disagreeing on anything other than the definition of a tax. Since you are essentially buying a T-Bill, I don't see it as a tax (for which you get nothing directly in return).
August 15, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
IrnBruoo1
For one, I am not a troll. Furthermore, I am not a Republican.
Second, if any actual Republican were to read many of the posts at this website they would consider it equally as delusional and unsupported as you claim my post is.
Many have called me a troll because I do not view things in exactly the same light as they do.
That is not me being a troll. That is them being intolerant.
August 15, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
PQuincy
Ad hominem perhaps. But is such rhetoric rare at this site?
The level of Republican misrepresentation here is absolutely staggering. I say this not as a Republican but as someone who can clearly decipher a bad argument.
My characterizing all Democrats as being interested in controlling people's futures is just as rational as many here who claim all Republicans are swindlers, liers, and fools.
My basis for making those remarks was twofold. First, the demise of the Republican privatization proposal was not ground in any quantitative evidence.
Rather, it was killed as a result of qualitative argument. Rhetoric purporting its infeasibility ranged from "experts" calling it too experimental to others stating erroneously that private accounts would make people reliant on the success of the stock market.
The second part of my inspiration is that the Democrats had absolutely nothing to offer in terms of an alternative.
Everyone agrees, even those on the left who despise the idea of privatized social security, that with the increased strain of retiring Baby Boomers the system needs serious reform or it will be absolutely bankrupt by the time any Generation X'er comes to retirement age. Forget Generation Y.
The Democrats were able to brilliantly and forefully unite in a grand assault on Bush's plan which was akin in overwhelming success to Operation Overlord in 1944.
Yet they had nothing to offer the American people in terms of a "better idea." In other words, they secured the beach-head but forgot to push inland to defeat the Nazi's.
This is like a couple who forbades their daughter from ever seeing her true love again merely because they don't like his haircut or clothes. The idea being that "you can't see him anymore because he is bad for you. But don't worry, I'm sure someone better suited will come along eventually."
To me that is not leadership.
August 15, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks ArtAp, for pointing out Josh's rating guides. That was very enlightening and I am glad to read them. But now I have a couple questions;
a) In Josh's third bullet, there's a reference to "Comment ratings 2 through 5" -- but there doesn't seem to be a way to rate something five now, unless I'm missing something. (I am guessing perhaps there was a previous rating system?) So I have used a "1" to signify that I don't think Gettysburg is bringing much of anything to the discussion with his/her original comment here, (especially with his/her item number two baloney).
b) And, I hate to call you out on this, but Josh's final guideline says "Retaliating against someone else's ratings abuse can be a form of ratings abuse in itself..." So maybe you uprating to compensate for the unfair way you believe others are rating is not the right path? Maybe each of us should just rate this comment as we see fit then?
But again, thanks for raising this subject. What do others think?
Sheila in CT
August 15, 2006 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you making one now? ROTFL! A bad argument, I mean.
I mean, here you are talking about being someone who can clearly decipher a bad argument... but in your very next paragraph, you justify a sweeping and unfounded generalization by claiming that someone else (unidentified) also makes a sweeping and unfounded generalization...
So... too wrongs make a right? That you are entitled to make bad arguments because someone else has made a bad argument? This premise seems so obviously flawed I can only assume you were engaging in a sly witticism.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. In fact, hardly anyone who knows about the subject agrees with that.
Your proposition at its core is that if a trend is extended indefinitely out into infinity then it will lead to disaster.
Social Security's current viability under the present situation with no alterations remains viable until 2046.
Frankly, we can't say for sure if New Orleans will exist in 2046, or if Florida will be under water. The number of potential intervening factors is such that a projection of this nature borders on meaninglessness.
Further, even if we accept the time projection that we're good until 2046, further examination of social security suggests that the problems can be solved without radically changing the program, but merely making relatively minor tax adjustments at various points in time.
It may be anathema to you to contemplate adjustments in tax rates... But get over it. Taxes are a legitimate tool of governance, and taxes rise and fall based on reasonable and necessary expenditures.
The fact that you choose to ignore this reality, and instead claim without foundation that 'no one has come up with alternatives' speaks of ideological blinders, and not true inquiry. What you really mean is that no one has come up with an alternative which caters to your ideological viewpoint. That's a subtle but real distinction.
Your excitement over a crisis which is 40 years in the future, and which appears to be easily remedied along that timeline, seems premature and reckless... given the number of far more immediate problems facing the United States along much shorter timelines.
Moreover, I have to wonder at your willingness to endorse an immediate flawed and dysfunctional solution, to a problem which will not exist for decades.
The only analogy that I can think of, is that of a man who learns that he may get cancer in thirty years, and who rushes out and buys a ball pean hammer to repeatedly strike himself on the head with... Well, just because it feels good when you stop, doesn't mean you are taking a meaningful approach to the problem.
August 15, 2006 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'll give you credit for calling Democrats on their lack of an agenda. Democrats simply have no courage of their convictions or of anyone else's for that matter. It was the public who pushed back on Social Security and the Dems pretty much followed.
I'll even give the much despised DLC credit for having an agenda, a Main Street Republican agenda, that I will not vote for, but an agenda.
Who will lead with an agenda for social justice Democrats? How many trillion dollar wars can we afford AND Social Security? We could at least begin by voting against WWIII and for Social Security. And young folks, believe it or not, when you get to your fifties and your boomer parents are in their eighties you'll be happy enough that they are secure in their old age and a good many of them are going to remember you in their wills anyway. So cheer up. Spread the wealth around. It's the Democratic thing to do.
August 15, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats also need to play up the utter waste of the war in Iraq. Play up the grandiosity of the neocon fantasy and the costs to small town America.
August 15, 2006 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Privatization would afford the individual more say in their own future.
Strawman alert!
Individuals currently have the ability to invest their own money, in tax-favored retirement accounts (IRAs and 401ks), so your point is moot. Meanwile Social Security provides everyone with a bare minimum subsistence income in retirement in case other resources go belly up (see: Stock market bubble collapse of 2000; today's housing collapse etc.)
August 15, 2006 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Everyone agrees, even those on the left who despise the idea of privatized social security, that with the increased strain of retiring Baby Boomers the system needs serious reform or it will be absolutely bankrupt by the time any Generation X'er comes to retirement age.
Some fairly modest reforms would make Social Security solvent indefinitely: raising the retirement age, changing the COLA formula, and removing the cap on income to be taxed.
If you want to reform something that is a real mess I direct you to Medicare. But be certain that no Medicare reform will be possible without health care reform in general, leading to some form of universal coverage. Otherwise you're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
August 15, 2006 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off-topic response to Sheila's questions:
1) Josh wrote that for the ratings system we had with the old software, of which 4 ratings were the same as we have now and a 5th was in the middle, like "neutral;" he took that rating out with the new software change a few months back.
2) When I saw what I thought were unfair ratings on his comment, I rated Gettysburg's comment what I thought it deserved from the ratings I have to chose from now--I would have actually given it an old neutral "3". It is a point some of us have actually discussed more than a few times in the Cafe Management discussion table section. Mho,and that of some other members here, a neutral 3 makes it easy to counteract unfair ratings without being dishonest about your own opinion about the quality of the comment--for that reason, I miss it. I often don't bother to counter unfair ratings any more without it, either. But I was inspired to do something this time because I've just seen too many instances of this recently, and haven't done anything about it, and they have been targeted towards people I know to offer very good commenting here, just on the basis of disagreement. The main thing with most of us interested in the rating system is trying to keep the quality of discourse high, and to keep some genuine discourse, not echo chamber dittoheading, like so many other sites. If you have more interest in these issues, check out Josh's recent posts in that section at that link.
August 15, 2006 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron has said it about as I would.
Just one more point: during the Republic party's push to allocate a substantial proportion of the Social Security tax to 'private accounts', there was much lively discussion. I heard leading economists of a liberal bent (Krugman, DeLong, others) conduct serious analysis of the scope of the expected underfunding, the reliability of the assumptions used, and the possible means, at various timeframes, to make needed changes.
I therefore find it implausible that you claim that 'no one' offered any alternative.
It may be true (if also exaggerated) that you didn't find Democratic legislators at the forefront of those offering alternatives to Bush's plan. I see two reasons for this:
(1) as the minority party, they were in no position to offer major alternatives. The conduct of the House (in particular) has been to rigorously control the agenda, allowing serious legislation only from Republic party members, while allowing Democrats to talk on C-Span to an empty House.
(2) In past instances during Pres. Bush's term, when Democrats did try to "offer alternatives" or suggest compromises, they frequently found themselves played for suckers. Their concessions were seized on while their alternatives were ignored or voted down...or most perniciously, carefully worked out compromises (usually in the Senate) were then simply stripped from bills during conference committees tightly controlled by the Republic party leadership.
I recall a lively discussion at the political level in which many commentators openly urged that there be _no_ offering of alternatives, as a matter of political strategy, since any concessions to the Republic party position would be quickly taken without any quid pro quo, leading to a 'racheting' towards a bill unacceptable to most Democrats.
It's fair, of course, to point this out--but not fair to characterize it simply as "they had no alternative", especially since many economists' analysis suggested that the 'crisis' was not a crisis. (Even a very small change in assumptions about growth rates over the next _twenty_ years could make the 'crisis' vanish...or become much worse.
August 16, 2006 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record, I characterized Gettysburg's comment as NOT "ad hominem", though I found the second claim unproductive.
I appreciate the more complete discussion, though I still disagree with several points you make -- as Valdron below covers very nicely.
August 16, 2006 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except 3 isn't neutral at all. It's good.
IrnBru001's blog
August 16, 2006 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Social Security piratization is just a money grab by wealthy repugs. They have all of the tools to invest for retirement. What happens to the average American (the one who has the exploding mortgage, a 401k that still is below 2000 levels, and a reduced/non-existent pension) if they have no safety net? I expect that there will have to be some kind of taxpayer-funded bailout - like the failed S&Ls of the '80s so that the next generation of retirees won't be destitute. We all (except the rich) get stuck paying anyway.
August 16, 2006 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you noticed how the admin. never actually gives anyone the numbers?
The average wage is $654.00 per week, the worker contributes 6.2% of that in S.S. which is 40.54. per week. According to the administration's plan, a worker can contribute 4% of the 6.2% of his payment to a privatized fund, which would be $16.21 per week, for a total of $842.92 per year.
So then what? The employer pays S.S. quarterly, which means that every three months, the employer would deposit $200.00, that means that at the end of the first year, you would not have enough money to buy any treasury security, in fact it would take a year and 1/4 to buy a $1000.00 treasury security. And then who pays the administrative and handling costs and the inevitable insurance costs that the private investing company will have to pay and which will be passed on to the consumer?
Of course, it is assumed that your income will increase over your working life and you will have more money to invest, but I just cannot see how the average citizen would be better off under this plan, than to contribute the 6.2% with a guaranteed lifetime benefit.
August 16, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care of you are or aren't Republican, I don't care if you criticize Democrats, even unfairly. But what I think I see from you is pure Republican propaganda for the so-called "personal accounts." Why not at least have the good sense and courtesy to examine what the personal accounts would be and examine how they would be run? Won't they at best provide a limited number of investment choices and a limited freedom to change the choices from time to time? The Republicans put a fancy "workers can choose how to invest their money" gloss on the schmee but they as yet have not even introduced a bill in Congress that describes the personal account scheme (so asking you to examine the scheme in any detail is asking you to do something impossible: they won't tell us.) There are here and there non-binding claims about what the scheme will be or might be but it's still a pig-in-a-poke: we can't see the details because they won't show them. As an investment that's a very bad choice for where to put your money. When the guy selling you the investment won't tell you the details and won't give you a prospectus the best (and the only logical) thing to do is to get away from that guy as fast as possible - and then stay away. Right now "that guy" is Bush. He won't tell you the details of the scheme he wants you to invest in. While his slick sales pitch may appeal to whatever-you-are-that-isn't-Republican (scant mystery about that) those who aren't pre-primed to be sucked in by hand-waving about "choosing how to invest your own money" can be more rational and simply refuse to consent to ANY undescribed plan.
Not that it's fully undescribed. Probably you didn't notice this but Bush at least four times on the road (in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico) made it very clear that retirees would be denied access to their accumulated principal in their lifetimes. All they could get, according to the words straight out of Bush's mouth, would be the "interest." That doesn't quite look like "controlling your own money" to me.
And don't forget it's a pig-in-a-poke. Social Security is subjected to an annual analysis and that analysis is reported. The analysis is done making various assumptions about the financial future of the US. For the personal account scheme we have seen, to date, no analysis whatsoever. All we've seen is a crude attempt to use historical figures from the period during which the US was converting to an industrial economy and without the general retirement monies invested in financial markets to predict the results for the US economy in the post-industrial phase and with the general retirement monies invested in the financial markets. How much change in the financial markets do these projections indicate will result from the huge new investments? That's an invalid question: the projection is so crude it takes nothing at all into account. It's not a financial analysis at all, it's a sales pitch - and one that no stockbroker or mutual find salesman would ever be allowed to make. Unlike politicians, they have standards they must meet.
Show me the prospectus. I've seen the sales pitch. Anyone considering an investment needs to see the prospectus. Where is it?
August 16, 2006 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also strongly disagree with the claim that "...with the increased strain of retiring Baby Boomers the system needs serious reform or it will be absolutely bankrupt ..."
I particularly disagree wth the sleight-of-hand being worked here. The demographics are the same no matter how retirement security is funded. If the three workers per retiree are supporting the retiree they are doing so no matter how the support is done. The demographic argument isn't an argument at all, it's just propaganda.
I'm not saying the demographics don't matter, I'm saying that if there is a problem due to the changing demographics then that problem affects both Social Security and the hypothetical personal account scheme. It's simply invalid to say that demographics affect Social Security and then completely ignore that demographcs affect the personal account scheme.
(I can anticipate standard right-wing "yes but" arguments here. Ignored. I have to see analysis, not arguments. It's a financial matter, I want to see it analyzed as such. Doesn't the general retirement system for all workers deserve analysis? If a change in the general retirement system is being proposed shouldn't the proposed change be analyzed? Just as important, shouldn't the results of that analysis be shown and then be discussed? I've seen some people blow this off with "they can work out the details later. That's a very poor argument and accepting it is a very bad idea.)
August 16, 2006 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweep the problem under th rug, eh?
August 16, 2006 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Tammy Duckworth's and Jim Webb's call for a new Truman Commission to expose and rein in DOD abuses by Rummy and Cheney.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/10/195223/650
August 17, 2006 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) There are NO much needed reforms. If you read Josh's or Kevin Drum's analysis of the politicized SS actuaries' numbers last year you'd understand that they used worst case scenario financial projections for SS's health and the best case scenario for privatization. I.e. the rate of return on SS's investments showed the nation's economy at near depression levels while the privattized scheme showed an investment environment circa 1999 lasting for 50 years. Can't have it both ways.
The SS administration has done 3 sets of projections for decades. Not surprisingly they've usually played up the worst case scenario when trying to get attention. In actuality the rosiest scenario has been more accurate over time. It projects the Trust Fund running out of money sometime between 2070 and never.
2) Bush eventually wound up with a proposal that would have so many restrictions to protect people from their own stupid investment choices that it had very little choice at all. It was essentially the same investments Social Security makes now with an extra layer of very expensive Wall St. administered bureaucracy thrown in.
3) The alternative is called Social Security. The reforms brokered by Alan Greenspan and agreed to by Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan in 1983 were meant to build the Trust Fund up sufficiently to pay for the baby boomer bulge.
Congress will have to start taxing wealth and the wealthy again and give Iraq back to Iraqis so we start running surpluses again.
Gettysburg is obviously a Republican troll.
August 17, 2006 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans who want to privatize Social Security are swindlers, liars, and fools. You'll notice that so many backed away from the the chief swindler, liar, and fool his efforts fell flat. It wasn't the Democratic party that did it. It was a gift from the out of touch Bush Administration. Hastert and Grassley quit because they knew they couldn't get Republicans to vote for it.
Silly war and romance analogies aside the Dems don't need to fix what ain't broke. Social Security isn't broke. It's not going broke. In the eventuality the Trust Fund bonds are all cashed out in 2041 or 2070 that simply means Congress will no longer be abliged to take money out of general revenues to redeem SS Treasury Bonds. It'll free up that money to buy new bonds. Regardless FICA tax revenues will still cover 73% of SS payouts.
August 17, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink